Who's Online

We have 331 guests online

Popular

1197 readings
De-legitimization of war War on Trial PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Posted by Joan Russow
Wednesday, 11 December 2019 13:44

Sunday, 20 July 2014 09:29

REPOSTED De-legitimization of war War on trial

Prosecution argument 
By Joan Russow Global Compliance Research Project -

photo shock and awe in Iraq 2003

War should be placed in the Dustbin of History? The Transcript of the presentation at ngo conference at the UN and videotaped 

 Joan Russow: Prosecution

Sadly, the United Nations has often been equated with the UN Security Council, (UNSC) which is deemed to be able to bestow legality, under Article VII of the Charter of the United Nations, on an invasion of another state. The UN Security Council violates a fundamental principle in the Charter of the United Nations: the principle of sovereign equality, and by being given the power to bestow legitimacy on an act of war, violates the fundamental purpose of the Charter of the United Nations - to prevent the scourge of war. The UN Security Council should be abolished and the UNGA should be strengthened.

PROVISIONS UNDER CHAPTER VI FOR THE PEACEFUL RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES


The serious irreversible human, environmental, health, psychological, economic and social consequences of war support the contention that under no conditions or circumstances is war legal or just, and that war must be de-legitimized as an option or even as a last resort.
The seeds for de-legitimizing war have been planted through the Charter of the United Nations, and through over 60 years of UN instruments.

For years, member states have incurred obligations under the charter, treaties, conventions, and covenants, made commitments under conference action plans, and created expectations through UN General Assembly Resolutions and Declarations that would, if implemented and enforced, give substance to the de-legitimization of war. From these instruments, peremptory norms, which further the rule of international law can be extracted.

Under the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations the fundamental purposes of the Charter are delineated:

-to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind [humanity]
-to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
- to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom

Chapter VII, of the Charter of the United Nations contravenes the purpose of the Charter: to prevent the scourge of war. Unfortunately, under international law, an invasion of another state is deemed to be legal if the UN Security Council, under Chapter VII, deems that the necessary conditions required for a war to be "legal" have been met. Also under Article 51-self defence- has been used to justify so-called pre-emptive/preventive Aggression.

Chapter VI, entitled "peaceful solutions of disputes", of the Charter of the United Nations, however, does conform to and uphold the fundamental purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, advances the de-legitimization of war, and promotes respect for the rule of international law through the International Court of Justice.

Under Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations, a number of provisions have been established to bring about the peaceful settlement of disputes:

(i) The first provision is to counter conflict of interest in decision making related to peaceful solutions of disputes
Decisions under Chapter VI, are constrained by Article 27 which reads that a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. This provision which is present in Chapter VI is absent in Chapter VII, is consistently violated by the UN Security Council.

(ii) The second provision to bring about peaceful settlement of disputes is recourse, under article 36, to the rule of international law, through the International Court of Justice:

Article 36 reads: "legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court".

Chapter XIV complements Chapter VI in outlining the role of the International Court of Justice under Chapter xiv, Article 92 states that the International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations...and under Article 93 all members of the UN are ipso facto parties to the statute of the International Court of Justice, and under Article 94, each member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in a case to which it is a party and under Article 96 there is the provision for the UN General Assembly, UN Security Council and other organs of the UN to request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.

Under the Charter of the United Nations there is an important principle “the principle of sovereign equality; this principle is violated by the UN Security Council but respected by the UN General Assembly. The permanent members of the UN Security Council continually attempt to invoke Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.

To prevent the scourge of war and to remove the conditions which are claimed to support the legality of war, the global community must definitively concur that the conditions that have been used to declare war to be legal must be abandoned.

- Chapter VII which condones conditional legitimization of war in contravention of the purpose of the UN Charter itself must be struck.
- Chapter VI of the Charter of United Nations must be strengthened and in particular the instituting of the mandatory requirement for states to appear before the International Court of Justice, to accept its jurisdiction and to act on its decisions. and for the panel to support the rephrasing of article 36 to read "legal disputes 'shall' rather than 'should as a general rule', be referred by the parties to the international court of justice..."

THE CENTRAL ROLE OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY: UNITING FOR PEACE RESOLUTION
In 1951, when the UN Security Council was unable to come to an agreement, resolution 377 (V) entitled "Uniting for Peace" was passed by the UN General Assembly. The purpose of the resolution was to recognise the responsibility of the UN General Assembly to prevent the scourge of war. In the preamble of the Resolution is the following expression of the role to the UN General Assembly:

"if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security. If not in session at the time, the General Assembly may meet in emergency special session within twenty-four hours of the request therefor. Such emergency special session shall be called if requested by the Security Council on the vote of any seven members, or by a majority of the Members of the United Nations. "

ADDITIONAL ROLE OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY: SETTING UP INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS

"When the leader of any state, under any guise, including the misconstruing of Article 51- self-defence, demonstrates defiance of the fundamental principles and peremptory norms established through the UN system, the UN General Assembly must invoke article 22 which would permit the UN General Assembly to set up an international tribunal to judge a leader for contributing to crimes against the peace."

EXTENDING PEACEFUL RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES TO ALSO APPLY TO THE PREVENTION OF CONFLICT IN MAINTAINING TRUE SECURITY

If there is to be peaceful resolutions of disputes the larger spectrum , in preventing conflict, must be recognized and reflected in maintaining true global security through the compliance with international peremptory norms reflected in the years of international instruments; these norms can be derived from international instruments that have the following objectives:

- to achieve a state of peace, and disarmament; through reallocation of military expenses
- to create a global structure that respects the rule of law and the International Court of Justice;
- to enable socially equitable and environmentally sound employment, and ensure the right to development and social justice;
-to promote and fully guarantee respect for human rights including labour rights, civil and political rights, social and cultural rights -- right to food, right to housing, right to safe drinking water and sewage, right to education and right to universally accessible not for profit health care system;
• to ensure the preservation and protection of the environment, the respect for the inherent worth of nature beyond human purpose, the reduction of the ecological footprint and move away from the current model of unsustainable and over consumptive development.
For example, given the serious threat of climate change to peace and security, the UN Security Council resolution, must be extended to involve women in the prevention of conflict resulting from the dire consequences resulting from the conflict over the destabilising effects of climate change.

The close link between peace and climate change was recently established by the granting of the Nobel Peace Prize to not only Al Gore but also the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. For this reason, women must call upon the Intergovernmental Panel to seriously address the contribution of militarism, through emissions from the production of all weapons systems, military exercises, from war games, weapons testing, military aviation, environmental warfare, troop transfer, military operations, waste generation, reconstruction after acts of violent interventions etc.; to greenhouse gas emissions and thus to perpetuation of the continuing threat of climate change.

IN CONCLUSION

Rather than tinkering with reform of the UN Security Council, member states of the United Nations should advocate for the abolition of the UN Security Council, the deletion of Chapter VII, the invocation of Chapter VI including a mandatory provision to respect the jurisdiction and decision of the International Court of Justice, and the transference of issues of conflict to the UN General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace Resolution

ANNEX; TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROSECUTION

** the Court

 Crown Attorney alias Joan E. Russow (PhD)

1 250 598-0071.

THE SERIOUS IRREVERSIBLE HUMAN, ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, PSYCHOLOGICAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT UNDER NO CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES IS WAR LEGAL OR JUST

THE SEEDS FOR DELEGITIMIZING WAR HAVE BEEN PLANTED THROUGH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND THROUGH OVER ALMOST 60 YEARS OF UN INSTRUMENTS,

FOR YEARS, MEMBER STATES HAVE INCURRED OBLIGATIONS UNDER     THE CHARTER, TREATIES, CONVENTIONS, AND COVENANTS MADE COMMITMENT UNDER CONFERENCE ACTION PLANS, AND CREATED EXPECTATIONS THROUGH UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS. THAT WOULD IF IMPLEMENTED AND ENFORCED GIVE SUBSTANCE TO THE DE-LEGITIMIZATION OF WAR.

THE FORCE OF COMPLIANCE AND THE FURTHERANCE OF “COMMON SECURITY” BASED ON THE RULE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ARE PARAMOUNT.

UNDER NO CONDITION OR CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD WAR BE DEEMED TO BE "LEGAL" OR "JUST"

THE FORCE OF COMPLIANCE AND Furtherance of Common security

ELABORATION OF CURRENT THREATS TO TRUE SECURITY/COMMON SECURITY

OUTLINE:

1DETERMINATION OF WAYS TO STRENGTHEN THE UNITED NATIONS THROUGH THE REFORM OF ITS INSTITUTIONS AND PROCESSES.                                                                                                                                         

-Under no condition is the act of war legal

Under no condition is the act of war just

2.DESCRIPTION OF CONTRIBUTIONS THAT CAN BE MADE BY COLLECTIVE ACTION IN ADDRESSING THESE CHALLENGES

-Prevention of threats and violence through the furtherance of the force of compliance and common security.

3 EXAMINATION THE CURRENT THREATS TO PEACE AND SECURITY.

- Delineation of threats to true security: common security

1.DETERMINATION OF WAYS TO STRENGTHEN THE UNITED NATIONS THROUGH THE REFORM OF ITS INSTITUTIONS AND PROCESSES.                                                                                                                                         

THE SERIOUS IRREVERSIBLE HUMAN, ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, PSYCHOLOGICAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT UNDER NO CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES IS WAR LEGAL OR JUST

A. Under no condition is the act of war legal

Often war is declared to be legal if under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations the UN Security Council deems that the necessary conditions required for a war to be legal have been met.

Chapter VII, however, of the Charter of the United Nations contravenes the purpose of the Charter: to prevent the scourge of war

UNDER THE PREAMBLE OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSES OF THE CHARTER ARE DELINEATED:

-to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind [HUMANITY]

 -to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

 -to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

ON THE OTHER HAND, Chapter VI, entitled "Peaceful Solutions of Disputes", conforms TO AND UPHOLDS the fundamental purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, ADVANCES THE DE-LEGITIMIZATION OF WAR, AND PROMOTES RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW THROUGH THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE.

Under Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations a number of provisions have been established to bring about the peaceful settlement of disputes:

(I) The first, provision is to counter conflict of interest in decision making related to peaceful solutions of disputes

Decisions under Chapter VI, are constrained by Article 27 which reads that a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

This provision which is present in Chapter VI but is absent in Chapter VII, is consistently violated by the un security council

(i) The second provision to bring about peaceful settlement of disputes is recourse, under article 36, to the rule of international law, through the International Court of Justice:

Article 36 reads: illegal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.

Chapter xiv complements Chapter VI in outlining the role of the International Court of Justice

Under Chapter xiv, Article 92 states that the International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations...and under Article. 93 all members of the UN are ipso facto parties to the statute of the International Court of Justice, and under Article 94, each member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in a case to which it is a party

and under Article 96 there is the provision for the UN General Assembly, UN Security Council and other organs of the UN to request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.

Sadly, Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, continues to be used to justify military intervention if supported by the UN Security Council.

It can be argued that Chapter vii not only violates the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations

but also violates a fundamental Charter principle under Article 2 - the sovereign equality of states because the Security Council blatantly defies this principle.

 THUS

TO PREVENT THE SCOURGE OF WAR AND TO REMOVE THE CONDITIONS WHICH ARE CLAIMED TO SUPPORT THE LEGALITY OF WAR, THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY MUST DEFINITIVELY CONCUR THAT THE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN USED TO DECLARE WAR TO BE LEGAL MUST BE ABANDONED

AND I URGE THE COURT   TO SUPPORT THE STRIKING OF CHAPTER VII WHICH CONDONES CONDITIONAL LEGITIMIZATION OF WAR IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PURPOSE OF THE UN CHARTER ITSELF.

I ALSO URGE THE COURTTO CALL FOR THE STRENGTHENING OF CHAPTER VI OF THE CHARTER OF UNITED NATIONS AND IN PARTICULAR THE INSTITUTING OF THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT FOR STATES TO APPEAR BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, TO ACCEPT ITS JURISDICTION AND TO ACT ON ITS DECISIONS.

AND FOR THE ACTION FORUM TO SUYPPORT THE REPHRASING OF ARTICLE 36 TO READ” LEGAL DISPUTES ’SHALL' RATHER THAN 'SHOULD AS A GENERAL RULE’, BE REFERRED BY THE PARTIES TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE..." INCLUDING AN INTERPRETATION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES SELF DEFENCE.

AND FINALLY,

I URGE THE COURT TO CALL FOR THE STRENGTHENING OF THE ROLE OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY --WHICH UPHOLDS THE PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGN EQUALITY, AND FOR THE DISMANTLING THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL WHICH CONTRAVENES THE PRINCIPLE OF "SOVEREIGN EQUALTY" - AN INTRINSIC PROVISION OF THE CHARTER.

;

B. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE IS THE ACT OF WAR, JUST.

NEVER AGAIN WOULD THE NOTION OF THE JUST WAR BE TOLERATED.

Just war theory has too long plagued the global society and been used to counter the movement to advance the "de-legitimization of war.

"Just war" theory advances circumstances under which war has been deemed to be "just"

The rules that govern the justness of war (jus ad bellum) and the rules that govern just and fair conduct in war (jus in bello) are flawed and have been abused

THE PREMISES UPON WHICH THE RULES AND SO-CALLED "PRINCIPLES" OF JUST WAR CAN NO LONGER BE SUBSTANTIATED BECAUSE OF THE UNACCEPTABLE IRREVERSIBLE HUMAN, PYCHOLOGICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COSTS OF WAR.

(i) no longer can war be claimed to be just and religious absolutions sought for atrocities and transgressions:

it can be demonstrated that global society has moved beyond the disturbing practices legitimized under the crusades

(ii) no longer will the notion of the "ethic" of war be deemed to be beyond the norms of peaceful ethics and to be deserving of a separate moral realm:

it can be demonstrated that years of academic treatises and niceties have given proponents of war supporting segregating the ethic of war into a separate moral realm;

 it can be demonstrated that just war notions have been promulgated in military academies, yet war crimes continue, and violations of civilians, particularly women and children persist

(iii) never again can war be claimed to just because of the notion of just cause:

it can be demonstrated that "just cause" has been constantly based on disguised corporate or state vested interest, on staged attacks decried as provocation, and on false appeals to humanitarian concerns, feigned altruism or to responsibility to protect

 (iv)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              never again can the "precautionary principle" be used to support the responsibility to protect:

it  can be demonstrated internationally that government/ industry collusion has contributed to the  undermining of and disregarding of  the precautionary principle- which reads that where there is a threat to the environment or [human health], the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent the threat. Now, instead the precautionary principle is being re-vitalized to give legitimacy to “military intervention”

(v) no longer can the so-called "principle of just cause" be designated as a "principle" and used to declare the justice of war:

it can be demonstrated that the principle of just cause is not a principle but a device, a tactic or a strategy to rationalize military intervention;

(vi) never again can war be just because of the so-called principle of "reasonable success":

it can be demonstrated that reasonable success has been misinterpreted to mean military success with little consideration for so-called "collateral damage” or for long term irreversible human, health, environmental, social costs.

reasonable success has also been misinterpreted to entail the entrenchment of corporate interests in exploiting natural and human resources of the conquered state.

(vii) never again can initiating an act of aggression or pre-emptive aggression be deemed to be just:

it can be demonstrated that initiating act of aggression is not just even if it is held that aggressive war is permissible if its purpose is to retaliate against a wrong already committed (e.g., to pursue and punish an aggressor), or to pre-empt an anticipated attack.

(viii) never again can a war be claimed to be just because it is supported by the UN Security Council:

it can be demonstrated that the UN Security Council has often supported resolutions authorizing war because of state interests promoted through cajoling, intimidation, and bribery, and thus the decision is discredited:

it can be demonstrated that the UN General Assembly has been intimidated and thus hindered in invoking the 1951 “Uniting for Peace “Resolution to prevent the scourge of war

(ix) never again will a war be claimed to be just because it has been authorized by the right authority such as a sovereign state:

it has been demonstrated that right authority such as state authority often has no legitimate mandate and is not even a proper or just form a government

(x) no longer can states claim a war to be just through the manufacturing of consent or consensus:

it has been demonstrated that often right authority has been granted based on flawed evidence, or faulty intelligence

(xi) never again can war be claimed to be just because of the misconstrued claim of "self defence":

it has been demonstrated that the recourse of "self defence" has been extrapolated to anticipate probable acts of aggression, to assist others against an oppressive government from another external threat, or to pre-empt an anticipated attack (interventionism);

(xii) never again can war be claimed to be just because of self-defence being tolerated as an excuse for revenge or retaliation:

it has been demonstrated that the initiation of physical force for revenge and retaliation such as an eye for an eye have to be relegated to the dust-bin of uncivilized religious dogma

(xiii) never again can war be claimed to be just because it is engaged in for the sake of spreading freedom and democracy:

it has been demonstrated that the feigned altruism and the rationalization of spreading freedom and democracy is grounded in imperialistic territorial pursuits, or in ideological or religious obsessions

(xiv) never again can war be claimed to be just because of the alleged "right intention"- such as humanitarian intervention or responsibility to protect:

it has been demonstrated that those proclaiming right intention have often intentionally or negligently through corporate, state or ideological interests been responsible for contributing to the destabilization of states;

it has been demonstrated that often national interest, self interest and aggrandizement are paramount and overwhelmed by the pretext of fighting aggression

(xv) never again can actions in war be misperceived to be just because the military action is couched in well crafted euphemistic "operations”:

it can be demonstrated that military actions have

obfuscated vested military/corporate interest through well crafted covert and overt operations such as

(xvi) never again can war be claimed to be just because of "just cause" being deemed a sufficient condition for pursuing whatever means necessary to win:

it has been demonstrated that "whatever means" has resulted in deception, duplicity, distortion and misrepresentation, as well in tolerance for increased use of lethal weapons systems with long term health, environment and social consequences

(xvii) never again can war be claimed to be just and just war theory justify the bombing of civilian centres in the pursuit of military necessity:

it has been demonstrated that the excuse of military necessity has been used to justify the killing of civilians and the violate of Geneva conventions

xviii) no longer will the declaration of the justice of war depend on the so-called principle of the end being proportional to the means:

 it can be demonstrated that the means used often has unattended consequences that have been disproportionate to the end

(xix) never again can actions in war be claimed to be just because attacks are only limited to permissible targets:

it can be demonstrated that there are no permissible targets that are completely dissociated from the civilian populations and that do not have long term irreversible human, environmental, health, social, economic and psychological consequences

(xx) never again can actions in war be claimed to be just because of the perception that the consequences of war are irreversible through reparation:

It has been demonstrated that the serious human, environmental, health, psychological, economic and social consequences of war are irreversible and usual defy true reparation

I THEREFORE, URGE THE COURT, TO DECLARE THAT THE NOTION OF JUST WAR CAN NO LONGER BE USED TO COUNTER THE CALL FOR THE DE-LEGITIMIZATION OF WAR

THE SERIOUS IRREVERSIBLE HUMAN, ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, PSYCHOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT UNDER NO CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES IS WAR LEGAL OR JUST

 2.DESCRIPTION OF CONTRIBUTIONS THAT CAN BE MADE BY COLLECTIVE ACTION IN ADDRESSING THESE CHALLENGES

-Prevention of threats and violence through the furtherance of the force of compliance and common security.

THE SEEDS FOR ELIMINATION OF THREATS TO COMMON SECURITY AND FOR THE DELEGITIMIZING WAR HAVE BEEN PLANTED THROUGH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND THROUGH OVER ALMOST 60 YEARS OF UN INSTRUMENTS,

FOR YEARS, MEMBER STATES HAVE INCURRED OBLIGATIONS UNDER     THE CHARTER, TREATIES, CONVENTIONS, AND COVENANTS MADE COMMITMENT UNDER CONFERENCE ACTION PLANS, AND CREATED EXPECTATIONS THROUGH UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS. THAT WOULD IF IMPLEMENTED AND ENFORCED GIVE SUBSTANCE TO THE DE-LEGITIMIZATION OF WAR.

FORCE OF COMPLIANCE

PEACE WAS DESIGNATED AS A RIGHT OF ALL PEOPLES.

Convinced that life without war "peace with justice" and not just the absence of war serves as the primary international prerequisite for the material well-being, development and progress of countries, and for the full implementation of the rights and fundamental human freedoms. (United Nations Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace approved by General Assembly Resolution 39/11 of 12, 1984)

AND IN THE NAIROBI FORWARD LOOKING STRATEGIES FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN, A commitment was made to recognize that "peace depends on the prevention of the use or threat of the use of force, aggression, military occupation, interference in the internal affairs of others, the elimination of domination, discrimination, oppression and exploitation, as well as of gross and mass violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. (1985)

Unfortunately, states have (a) either failed to sign and ratify international Treaties, Conventions, and Covenants, (b) have failed, if they have signed Treaties, Conventions, and Covenants, to act to prevent the defeating of  the purpose of the treaties, Conventions, and Covenants, (c) or have failed,  if they have ratified Treaties, Conventions, and Covenants, to  enact the necessary national legislation to ensure compliance.

In addition, States have failed to act on commitments made through UN General Assembly Resolutions, and have failed to fulfill expectations created by Un General Assembly Resolutions and Declarations.

It is necessary to institute the proposal for an International Court of Compliance, lined to the International Court of Justice, where citizens and civil society could take states for non- compliance with obligations and commitments.

(ii) THE FURTHERANCE OF THE CULTURE OF PEACE THROUGH "COMMON SECURITY"

"SECURITY" HAS OFTEN BEEN MISCONSTRUED AS” MILITARY SECURITY”; AND HUMAN SECURITY, /"RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT" ,.HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO JUSTIFY MILITARY INTERVENTION;   ALL ATTEMPTS TO LEGITIMIZE MILITARY INTERVENTION CONTRIBUTES TO THE  CYCLE OF INCESSANT WAR AND COUNTER REVENGES

[PREPARED BUT NOT DELIVERED AT TRAIL 

Last Updated on Friday, 24 January 2020 19:22
 

Latest News