Who's Online

We have 276 guests online


3084 readings
Violation of International Law: The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) must be declared Null and Void PDF Print E-mail
Justice News
Sunday, 19 August 2007 20:27
Violation of International Law: The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) must be declared Null and Void

PEJ news
- Joan Russow - Montebello Declaration for the establishment of the North American Compliance Court (NACC) to replace the SPP by The Global Compliance Research Project

On August 20 and August 21, when the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the US meet in Montebello, they should reflect on the fact that one of them leads a minority government, another one was elected in an election still under dispute, still another is rapidly descending in the polls.

They should also reflect on the fact that all three come from rogue states that have generally shown disrespect for international peremptory norms.

Instead of further negotiating the SPP which entrenches the dereliction of duty towards these norms, they should establish a North American Compliance Court where citizens can take evidence of state and corporate non-compliance, and where, in the absence of compliance, charters and licences of corporation can be revoked.
In relation to the SPP, it should be noted that under Article 53 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties, Treaties may come in conflict with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens):

"A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. for the purposes of the present convention, a preemptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character."

The Security and Prosperity Partnership is described as an "agreement" rather than a treaty. [The objective is to bypass Congress] because in the United States Constitution, treaties have to be ratified by Congress whereas agreements can be acceded to by the President as a "sole executive agreement".

This "agreement" should still respect peremptory norms.

Peremptory norms can be extracted from years of international instruments to which a broad range of states, functioning under a range of legal systems, have incurred obligations, made commitments and created expectations.

Given that the Security and Prosperity Partnership, including all the subsidiary negotiations related to the SPP, will cause Canada, Mexico and the United States to further undermine peremptory norms, the SPP must be declared null and void.

In its place the three leaders at Montebello, Quebec in their meeting in August must thus abandon all further negotiations on the SPP and abide by peremptory norms which have been established to achieve the following objectives:

* 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 universally accessible, not for profit health care system , right to education and social justice;
* to enable socially equitable and environmentally sound employment, and ensure the right to development [as per Convention];
* to achieve a state of peace, social justice and disarmament; through reallocation of military expenses, and eradication of poverty
* to create a global structure that respects the rule of law ; and
* to ensure the preservation and protection of the environment, respect the inherent worth of nature beyond human purpose, reduce the ecological footprint and move away from the current model of overconsumptive development.

And should agree to set up and to set up a North American Compliance Court to achieve these objectives

For over 60 years states through the UN system, member states of the UN have incurred obligations through treaties, conventions and covenants, made commitments through UN Conference Action plans, and created expectation through UNGA declarations and resolutions related to furthering international law and common security.

True security is not "collective security" or "human security" which has been extended to "humanitarian intervention" and used along with the "responsibility to protect" with a view to justifying military intervention in other states. True security is "common security", not as defined in the SPP, but in documents prepared by Olaf Palme, and which entrench peremptory norms.

It is time for compliance, implementation and enforcement of these obligations and commitments.

Common security can only be achieved if there is a concerted international effort to eliminate the actions that have led to global insecurity, that no state shall compel another state to act to its detriment, and that no corporation shall be permitted to sue a state for respecting the commons, and for protecting the interests of its citizens.



WE, leaders from Canada, Mexico, and the United States HAVE AGREED TO THE FOLLOWING:

Article 1
We will discharge obligations incurred through conventions, treaties, and covenants; and act on commitments through conference action plans related to Common security - peace, environment, human rights and social justice

Article 2
We will sign, ratify, and enact the necessary legislation to ensure compliance with, or respect for Common Security international Conventions, Covenants and Treaties.

Article 3
We reaffirm our commitment to multilateralism and oppose unilateral actions that undermine global common security, and we undertake to abandon all further negotiations on the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Article 4
We undertake to reduce our military budgets and reallocate military expenses and transfer the savings into global social justice as undertaken through numerous UN Conference Action Plans and UN General Assembly Resolutions.

Article 5
We will no longer undermine the notion of democracy by couching a plutocracy/theocracy in democratic notions of "freedom".

Article 6
We will abandon the pre-emptive/preventive policy that has resulted in aggressive attacks on sovereign states and that has been in violation of the UN Charter article 2 and international law and is the 'supreme' international crime of a war of aggression.

Article 7
We will end the practice of mollifying public opposition by couching aggressive acts in euphemistic "operations" such as "operation just cause", Operation Iraqi freedom, "Operation Enduring Freedom" etc.

Article 8
We will withdraw immediately from any military involvement and occupation of sovereign states including Iraq and Afghanistan

Article 9
We will be willing to be judged by an international tribunal for any actions that might be deemed to violate international law, to be crimes against the peace, to be war crimes, or genocide

Article 10
We will not misuse UN "peace keeping" to clean up aggressive acts of destruction and occupation of other states

Article 11
We will undertake to sign and ratify all Geneva Protocols, including Protocol V which requires the removal of remnants of war

Article 12
We will no longer perceive justice in terms of revenge through military intervention we will instead seek justice through the International Court of Justice.

Article 13
We will no longer misconstrue Art 51 (self defence) of the Charter of the United Nations to justify premeditated non provoked military aggression, or use various pretexts for invading other sovereign states.

Article 14
We will not engage in and will oppose any attempt to undermine the international resolve to prevent the scourge of war; this would include not engaging in intimidation or in offering economic incentives in exchange for support for military intervention.

Article 15
We will invoke Chapter VI
Last Updated on Sunday, 19 August 2007 20:27

Latest News