Prayer Of Invocation For A Brunch

wars and the UN.

The United Nations Charter enshrines in Article 2, the general principle of prohibition of the use of force, but provides for exceptions in Articles 51, 42 and 107, namely: self-defense, for maintain or restore international peace and security determined by the Security Council, and action against rogue states in the outbreak of hostilities at the end of World War II.

In 1974, Resolution 3314 supports the early defense against imminent threats, but not with latent threats, and is in the hands of the Security Council the question of whether there has been an act of aggression.

This self-defense was claimed by the U.S. government to justify the use of force in response to the terrorist attacks of September 2011, and so adopted by the Security Council in Resolution 1368. Internationalist doctrine wondered if conditions were to resort to the use of force (adoption of military measures, the existence of an armed attack requirement of immediacy, tentativeness and subsidiarity, etc). This would be an extension of the right of self-defense, less acceptance by the international community of the U.S. military response to Afghanistan.

In March 2003, there was military intervention by U.S. and British forces, with support from other countries including Spain was against Iraq, in Resolution 1441. According to some, did not expressly approved by the Security Council, others that had a sufficient legal basis which referred to earlier resolutions (687 and 678) was already able to use all necessary means including the military, and that a new resolution was not legally necessary.

also are extensions of this new right to the use of force include: the use by national liberation movements, the humanitarian interventions, protection of citizens and national interests.

In line with this extension to serve the military operations of NATO in 1999 on the former Yugoslavia, without the support of a Security Council resolution based on Chapter VII of the Charter.

Somehow underlying the general prohibition to intervene without the Council's decision Security, and the problem of what to do if you do not take any decision or collective action necessary.

now in Libya, Resolution 1970 of the Security Council has adopted various measures of demand (send a commission of inquiry, respect for human rights, freezing, etc). On the other hand, and later, Resolution 1973 authorizes the use of all necessary measures excluding the occupation of any part of Libyan territory, and thus sets a no-fly zone to protect civilians.

I know there is a major ideological debate on the issue of Iraq and Libya, but from a standpoint of public international law, the issues are those outlined above. A United Nations Charter has been passed to a extension of assumptions, with a questionable (in the good sense to discuss) customary support by the international community. Consider the language of the UN, and thus we see that the measures necessary measures and exclusion of flights to protect civilians, we are in a pepinazo on military targets that are a full-scale air war. Judge

you, but if they sound like it's Chinese the extent envisaged in the UN Charter, they have only read a few articles of our Constitution English and then view the Constitutional Court ruling that clarify, amend, modify, extend or restrict, so that sometimes are that "not known or the mother who bore them."

Good morning.