UNSC 1973 Decision vs. UN 1950 Nurnberg Principles: “Mr. Sarkozy & War Crime”

 

UN 1973 Decision vs. UN 1950 Nuremberg Principles: ‘Mr Sarkozy & War Crimes’

İstanbul, 26 March 2011

The United Nations Security Council, or UNSC’s, decision numbered 1973 that was taken during its session numbered 6498 convened on the date of March 17 (“Decision”) states that “any member country is entitled to intervene in order to implement this decision ‘solely’” in contrary to the intervention decisions made previously regarding Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan. 

The UNSC Decision draws borders around intervention in the broadest sense, e.g. refuses occupation of Libya, breaching its independence and national sovereignty and disintegration thereof. 

At the same time, the UNSC Decision refers to the decisions of the League of Arab States, the African Union, and the Organization of Islamic Conference, or OIC, dated March 10 and 16. Under none of the referred decisions, an intervention of any U.N. member state is addressed. 

The UNSC Decision numbered 1973 was voted on at 18:45 p.m., New York time, and made upon “affirmative votes” from 10 member states, whereby five member states “abstained from voting”. 

According to information that has not been published yet, the first French Mirage fighter jets took off at 23:45 p.m. GMT, which means at the same time ! 

Under these circumstances, it is questionable whether granting authorization to implement UNSC Decision to “any member state solely” as stated under the 4th and 8th articles of the UNSC Decision, is necessarily an effort and a victory for French diplomacy !  We have no information about this. The impatience of the French government and its president has put them under serious liability from a legal point of view, which we cannot deny. 

French diplomacy has made a serious mistake in interpreting the 8th article of the UNSC Decision. A matter that is being avoided nowadays as a result of political reasons puts France and its officers in a position of “initiation of an attack on a sovereign country without a declaration of war” under the U.N.’s 1950 Nuremberg Principle VI*. 

Since it would not be possible to accept an implementation such as “We comply with some provisions of U.N. decisions and we avoid some others,” the France’s cannot be perceived as being in accordance with U.N. decisions. 

According to our opinion, this liability emerged in two stages: 

1. Firstly, sabotaging the U.N. general-secretary’s seeking of an amicable solution according to the 2nd Article of the Decision numbered 1973 through its special representative and constitution of a committee by the African Union for the same purpose and imposing of the immediate actual war status on the U.N.  Especially, the 4th and 8th articles of the UNSC Decision, in particular the latter, clearly stipulates close collaboration between U.N. member state and members of the Arab League that will use power subject to informing them by virtue of a “notification” thereto. However, the French government and its president did not comply with such a stipulation, instead they applied another activity by bombing the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya without complying with the stipulations established by the UNSC Decision. 

2. Keeping this in mind, let’s scrutinize the second stage of liability. Following World War II, a “madness” of so-called democracy took over in the victorious countries. Man imagined that the superiority of the law would prevent any war, and as a result the United Nations was organized. The first duty of the organization was to prevent states from going to war. Although it has been everyone’s will for prevention to be sustained through legal means, unfortunately many times arms have been taken up. We know that…

However, we tend to forget the definitions of certain concepts and penalties implemented by the United Nations legally. For example, following World War II, the criteria on which the prosecution of the arrested Nazi war criminals would be based, the punishments they would receive, and adjustments regarding “Crimes Against Humanity” and “War Crimes” in the following years have always been decided by the U.N.

Consequently, whether its excuse is humanitarian, such as providing aid to Libya, or political, such as saving the prestige Mr. Sarkozy has lost in his own country, the bombing of Libyan territory without complying with U.N. decisions would constitute a “War Crime” under U.N. 1950 Nuremberg Principles* (particularly I, III, VI, VII). And requires a serious thought thereon!

Let’s see if the international community is going to send the losing party to the International Criminal Court of Justice, as it has done so previously, or if they will really seek the Right and Justice.

 

Sincerely yours

Hakan HANLI, Ph.D 

Senior Attorney-at-Law

Member of Ankara & Brussels Bars

International Arbitrator, ICC

GLOBAL TOP TEN COUNSEL of YEAR 2010

« IUS EST ARS ÆQUI »

* Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950.

Principle I: Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
Principle III: The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle VI: The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
             (a) Crimes against peace:
                 (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
                (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
             (b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
             (c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connexion with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII: Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

 

Advertisement