Download 0“[T}he United Nations was created, as Winston Churchill said, to

The Role of the United States and the United Nations
By Gerrald Commissiong
0“[T}he United Nations was created, as Winston Churchill said, to "make sure that the force of right will,
in the ultimate issue, be protected by the right of force”.
Another resolution is now before the Security Council. If the council responds to Iraq's defiance with more
excuses and delays, if all its authority proves to be empty, the United Nations will be severely weakened as
a source of stability and order. If the members rise to this moment, then the Council will fulfill its founding
purpose.
I've listened carefully, as people and leaders around the world have made known their desire for peace. All
of us want peace. The threat to peace does not come from those who seek to enforce the just demands of the
civilized world; the threat to peace comes from those who flout those demands. If we have to act, we will
act to restrain the violent, and defend the cause of peace. And by acting, we will signal to outlaw regimes
that in this new century, the boundaries of civilized behavior will be respected.”1
President George W. Bush addressing the American Enterprise Institute on an imminent war with Iraq
on 02/26/02
Wars have dominated mankind’s history to the point where history is most often
recounted as a string of wars transpiring one after the next. As man’s thinking evolved
throughout the second millennium, especially during the twentieth century, it became
evident that our technological advancement was coming to the frightening point where
entire populations could be wiped out with the single push of a button; as happened in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This gruesome reality, tragically realized during the First and
Second World Wars, led to the foundation of the United Nations, a union of nations from
around the globe whose main purposes are to prevent such wars and uphold human rights
through diplomacy and strategic military action.
To maintain international peace and security; and to that end: to take
effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats
to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other
breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in
conformity with the principles of justice and international law,
adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which
might lead to a breach of the peace.
1
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/27/1046064150688.html
-United Nations Security Council Charter Article 12
This extremely lofty mandate of world peace and security which has been set for the
United Nations will most likely never be realized. Despite the imminent impossibility of
its mandate, its directive has proven effective in preventing grand scale wars and in
seeking to better the living conditions of humans around the globe in the past half-century.
Furthermore, the United Nations has had a significant impact on diplomatic relations
between countries and has sought to exert its influence to promote its mandate, above
quoted. Historically, the United States has spearheaded United Nations policy as one of
its founding countries, as a permanent member of the Security Council and as one of the
world’s lone superpowers. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States has
emerged as the world’s lone superpower, as a bastion of democracy and it has advocated
the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the world; all consistent with
popular world opinion. Towards the beginning of 2002, only months after America
suffered its worst terrorist attack in history, the president of the United States, George
Bush, made clear his intentions to invade Iraq in order to disarm this country which Bush
considers “armed and dangerous”. This led to debate around the globe as to the validity
of such an invasion. Iraq has been described by many American government officials as a
part of the “Axis of Evil” because they suspect that Iraq supports terrorist organizations
such as Al-Qaeda and that Iraq had produced military arms which extended far beyond
the limits allowed by United Nations resolutions passed after the Gulf War. However,
many other countries, such as France, Germany and Russia, disagreed with these
American views and expressed this within the forum of the United Nations. Furthermore,
2
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
the United States has been seen increasingly in opposition with the United Nations and
the larger international community on such critical matters as the International Criminal
Court and the Kyoto Protocol. These American inconsistencies with United Nations
policy have led many to question the new role of the United States within the United
Nations as the world’s lone superpower in this new millennium. The reality is that by
diplomatically isolating itself from the rest of the world, America is repeating the errors
of previous world empires and this isolation will ultimately lead to its demise.
THE UNITED NATIONS
The United Nations was founded upon the democratic principles of countries
voting for laws, resolutions and military actions to be enforced equally throughout the
world. The objective of the United Nations has always been to provide a forum where
countries are able to discuss possibilities and move to action based on world consensus
and the international community’s backing. The criteria defining world consensus is
clearly stated within the United Nations charter. These principles are very similar to the
American principles of States Rights and Representation within the Union. As such, the
United States has been able to express its views on all topics brought forth before the
United Nations and has had the ability to bring forth topics for United Nations
consideration while maintaining its democratic ideals and bringing these ideals to other
countries.
THE CONFLICT WITH IRAQ
These democratic principles were severely shaken, however, when the United
States Ambassador to the United Nations publicly stated that his country was intent on
attacking Iraq with or without United Nations Security Council approval or backing.
The United States is ready to launch a unilateral war against Iraq if
necessary and without recourse to the UN Security Council.
-US Ambassador David Welch3
This statement and the Bush administration’s push to war in the past year led many to
question the intent of this war and the threat that Iraq posed to international security.
Under the charter of the United Nations this push to war, stated many times by
government officials as happening “with or without” the United Nations, is illegal if it is
not sanctioned by the Security Council. Furthermore, this push to war was in stark
contrast with historical American foreign policy when it comes to the United Nations and
the use of force on other nations. American precedence for preventative attacks on other
countries was set at the onset of the Cold War when President Truman said “You don't
'prevent' anything by war...except peace.”4 This stance was reaffirmed by presidents
Eisenhower and Kennedy, as Kennedy said “(A preventative strike would be a) Pearl
Harbor in reverse. For 175 years we have not been that kind of country.”
This represents a sharp break with past American practice. Even during
the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy recognized the stringent
limitations the Charter places on the right of self-defense. When
intercepting Soviet ships carrying missiles to Cuba, he was careful to
invoke the authority granted by the Charter to regional peacekeeping
institutions. When America has invoked self-defense in the past, it was
in response to clear threats by hostile nations to its soil or to its citizens.
-Yale Law School Prof. Bruce Ackerman5
The United States has historically supported the enforcement of all United Nations laws
and seeks the enforcement of these laws throughout the world. It is important to note here
that the United Nations only seeks to enforce its laws when they are being broken and the
manner in which they are broken is voluntary and malicious. The foundations and power
3
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/cg/Qegypt-us-iraq.Rt4J_CDR.html
4
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.09A.kennedy.htm
http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/293/yls_article.htm
5
of the United Nations have now come into question with the American position that it has
the right to act without the sanction of the Security Council. America saw itself enforcing
United Nations Resolutions that already existed. However, American inflexibility on
these United Nations resolutions discredited Security Council power thus affording the
American Government instant autonomy in deciding when to attack. The unilateral strike
severely discredited the Security Council and the advancements towards peace that it has
made, as one of its permanent members was seen disregarding the same international law
it helped established.
The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values,
because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder.
They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life… If the council
responds to Iraq's defiance with more excuses and delays, if all its
authority proves to be empty, the United Nations will be severely
weakened as a source of stability and order.
-United States President George Bush6
It is clear that America ass in a bind. On the one hand, America was bound to
protect itself, and it felt that Iraq posed a direct threat to its national security. On the other,
it was bound by the same international law it helped establish and transport throughout
the world, the international law that has served mankind well for the past two generations
and which prohibits unilateral action. The reality is that United Nations resolutions were
insufficient to satisfy American officials. President Bush realized that Iraq’s paltry arms
were few. Bush believed that Iraq had chemical weapons and was seeking to acquire
nuclear ones.
By going to war, the United States is in a situation in which it will lose.
On the one hand, if Iraq possesses chemical weapons then going to war
will force them to use these weapons as they did during the Gulf War,
thus leading to casualties. However, if no chemical weapons exist then
there is proof that the war was unjustified. By keeping the inspections
going and demanding the full compliance of Iraqi officials, which
6
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/27/1046064150688.html
they’ve begun to show in the past few weeks, we are advancing both of
these goals: if chemical weapons are there we should be able to find
them and we are preventing nuclear proliferation as inspections prevent
Saddam from acquiring such weapons.
-Stanford University Professor Nina Tannenwald on May 20 th, 2003
Since the end of major fighting in Iraq, the United States has discovered many things.
The most important of these is that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, nor did it
have the resources to run a nuclear program and furthermore there were no chemical or
biological weapons of which to speak. This being said, the United States is fortunate that
the international community has made very little of the fact that this unjustified, illegal
war in Iraq led to the casualties of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians (an exact
number remains unknown as American forces did not see it fit to count the number of
Iraqis they had killed). Little has been said of the devastation that Iraq suffered
structurally as tanks and fighter jets shelled Iraqi cities and its countryside into a state
reminiscent of the Stone Age. Yet, as American officials continue to alter the original
motive of this war from weapons of mass destruction (which didn’t exist), to removing a
ruthless dictator from power (illegal as countries may have whatever government they
choose), to bringing democracy to the Middle East (no Middle Eastern country has a
democracy and non cherish it) the harsh reality is that the only truly secure pat of the
country, more secure than the water and electricity supplies, more secure than even
government headquarters in Baghdad are the oil fields that make up much of Northern
Iraq.
Bush used United Nations resolution 1441 in order to attain his ultimate goal:
toppling Saddam Hussein’s government and establishing a truly democratic state. This
goal, however, is one which cannot legally be done under any circumstance under
international law as no country has the power to decide for another country or
government what form of leadership should exist within that country’s borders. America
used the guise of defending itself from danger, which Bush claims existed from Iraq, in
order to remove Iraq’s authoritarian regime. The Security Council was created to ensure
that no country has the ability to impose its will upon another, to ensure that only the will
of the world, which seeks to advance peace and human rights, can be imposed upon a
country and to ensure that countries could live in relative governmental freedom. The
Security Council was democratically created by the United States and its allies to ensure
that the particular American goal of toppling Hussein’s government should never have
been realized, thus proving the Security Council’s and the United Nation’s importance as
the situation in Iraq is clearly much worse than it was before American forces “liberated”
Iraqis to military rule, unprecedented crime, no viable police force or army, little hospital
resources and no international aid other than that of the invaders of this Muslim nation.
There can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship.
-Ralph Nader 7
The United States is greatly altering its role as a proponent of the United Nations. The
principle of defying international law, if justified for America, can be justified by all
countries, including Iraq. This would lead to an authoritarian worldview as opposed to
the democratic one the United States has historically supported. As such, America’s role
within the United Nations must be revisited, and America must conform to United
Nations regulations in order to preserve its role as a world leader and prevent isolation
from the rest of the world which would lead to the demise of its liberal empire.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
7
http://www.cyber-nation.com/victory/quotations/authors/quotes_nader_ralph.html
The United States position on the International Criminal Court seems to be
somewhat similar to its stance on Iraq. Following deplorable human rights violations,
ethnic cleansings, and genocide, specifically in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia in the
past 15 years, the United Nations was faced with the gruesome reality that the tools with
which it was disposed to effectively deal with the grand scale crimes against humanity
perpetrated in this century were extremely inadequate to ensure justice. In 1998, the
Rome Statute, the physical document potentializing8 the existence of a new and
completely international court bound to prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes
against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression, was voted into existence by
countries seeking to make accountable those responsible for these crimes. This potential
became actuality in July 2002 when it was ratified by 50 states, the number agreed upon
by the representatives of states in Rome, including the United States.
This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Stature of the
International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United
States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the
United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on
December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to
become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the
depositary’s status lists relating to this treaty.
-Government of the United States of America on May 6th, 2002.
However, the new U.S. administration chose to revoke its governmental support
for the ICC nearing the eve of its becoming international law with the letter above quoted
for a myriad of reasons, including its world vision in which the U.S. is the major player.
“What is at issue here is much greater than the question of dealing with war crimes. The
implicit dispute is one between three visions of world order following the cold war. The
8
Definition of Potentializing http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00185394/00185394se2
Bush administration supports unilateral, global US hegemony, even ‘empire’.”9 The
United States must become a party to this court if it wishes to retain its status as world
leader in the area of human rights and uphold the preamble of its constitution “Life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness” throughout the world. The ICC is attempting to
ensure these ideals to the world and the United States’ opposition to joining this court,
despite its contention that it is unable to do so, is a statement to the world that it has little
respect for human rights, and even less respect for the international body entrusted to
uphold them. The United States has the capacity and wherewithal to aid greatly in the
assurance of justice and peace in the world and must have as its objective to protect and
ensure human rights, not just American ones. America has seen the rights of its citizens
violated throughout the world; whether it is at nightclubs in Bali, at embassies in Kenya
or in Nairobi, or on its very own soil, with the dramatic attacks of September 11th.
Reflecting upon these events, it is clear that America cannot effectively defend itself from
all of the world’s threats and must cooperate with international bodies in order expand a
world network seeking security throughout the world. The international criminal court is
the extension of the unions created by the international community to further the aim of
world peace by creating consequences for those who commit mankind’s most atrocious
acts.
Article 27
Irrelevance of official capacity
1.
This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any
distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as
a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or
parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in
9
http://web.lexisnexis.com/universe/document?_m=481e29bc5a16e4b220e4a7a1a4564c6f&_docnum=11&wchp=dGLbVtb
-lSlzV&_md5=c8240d3484d4954cc259672ec85fa0e9
no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute,
nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of
sentence.
2.
Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the
official capacity of a person, whether under national or international
law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a
person. 10
Despite this, America is entitled to an opinion on the matter of the International
Criminal Court. The United Nations was created so that all countries could express their
opinions, so that decisions could be made based on international consensus and so that
laws of international importance could be implemented on a world scale to attempt to
eliminate double-standards.
However, the United States is going beyond disagreement in its position. It is
publicly choosing not to comply with new international law and is requesting the noncompliance of other nations with regards to the United States; a move which has
overwhelmingly been rejected. The United States is attempting to undermine the
authority of the Court by asking countries to sign Article 98: stating that if signed they
would not hand over United States citizens who have been accused of committing one of
the crimes under the Court’s jurisdiction. Moreover, countries have been requested by the
United States government to hand over suspects of the U.S. government believed to have
committed a crime under the Court’s jurisdiction to the American government rather than
the ICC.
American government policy now stands in stark contrast to the values that it
upholds and exports throughout the world. The United States cannot demand compliance
of United Nations resolutions of other countries if it itself has openly decided to go
10
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm
against international law and has chosen to not respect such an essential part of
international justice as the International Criminal Court. Moreover, it has requested that
other nations join it in its unlawful position of non-compliance. The United States is
based on the same principles as the United Nations: democratic ones. Within this context,
there are moments when policy positions between the United Nations and the United
States will differ. The important factor of democracy is that once majority vote is reached
it must to be respected by all, not just those in agreement.
THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
The 1997 Kyoto protocol, signed by former president Bill Clinton, was seen by
the United Nations as supremely important to prevent serious global environmental
problems in future generations. The pact called for the world’s largest polluters to reduce
their pollution output of greenhouse emissions. These gases prevent heat from escaping
the Earth’s atmosphere, thus significantly contributing to global warming. The United
States’ endorsement of this agreement displayed America’s multilateral foreign policy
and its willingness to engage in environmental politics, despite fundamental problems
with the treaty. The Kyoto protocol called for the reduction by 5.8% of 1990 levels of
greenhouse emissions by each member country by the year 2012. The United States,
which accounts for over 25% of the world’s greenhouse gases while housing within its
borders just 4% of the world’s population, is by far the single largest polluting country in
the world. This pollution affects not only Americans but all humans on the Earth,
displaying the need for a multinational agreement clearly defining collective strategies
and goals for reducing the negative externalities of production and consumption.
However, when the Bush administration came to office, it chose to remove itself
from the treaty citing that the goals of the treaty were unreachable considering America’s
poor economic performance and its dependence on green house gas emitting sources of
energy. “We'll be working with our allies to reduce greenhouse gases,” Bush told
reporters ahead of his meeting with (German Chancellor Gerhard) Schroeder. “But I will
not accept a plan that will harm our economy and hurt American workers.”11
The points that Bush presents to justify removing America from the Kyoto
Protocol are valid and important. However, these points demonstrate the importance of
working within the broader context as a member nation of the Kyoto Protocol in order to
ensure that some form of effective solution can be reached to prevent global warming.
The Kyoto Protocol, as it currently stands, is far less demanding than it originally was by
allowing countries to exchange emission credits for money and ensuring a global
reduction rather than a country by country reduction, key American points concerning the
accord. Furthermore, the percentage of greenhouse emission reduction has also been
significantly decreased, from 5.8% in 1997 to the 1.8% of the final pact in 2002, another
important American reason for withdrawal. This willingness to be flexible on the part of
the international community is a sign to America that it is willing to work with
industrialized countries if these countries are willing to work within the context of
multilateral international agreements in order to achieve common goals.
The Bush administration was right to say that Kyoto was unworkable in
America as Clinton signed it in 1997. In fact Congress voted 100%
against it when the ratification process began. However, the Bush
administration’s greatest failing when it comes to this is that it did not
propose a solution or compromise about its concerns with Kyoto. It
simply threw it in the trash, and this is not the type of response to
adversity we expect from our president.
-Stanford University Professor Stephen Krasner
11
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/29/164418.shtml
The fact that the Bush administration completely withdrew from the proposal is a sign
that it is unfazed by the concerns of its allies and that it concerns itself only with
immediate American interests, as opposed to international interests and future American
ones. The withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol is indicative of the Bush administration’s
isolationist foreign policy.
THE WORRYSOME FACTS
The United States is the world’s lone superpower. It produced 22.73% of the
world’s production in 2000.12 America spends more on defense than the next 15 highest
defense spending countries on the planet combined per year. Despite these incredible
numbers, the United States remains vulnerable to anti-American sentiment. This
sentiment, dramatically displayed on September eleventh 2001 when America suffered its
worst terrorist attack in history, is the result of an arrogance that America has displayed
through its foreign policy since the end of World War II, and cannot be defended against
by further isolation and defense spending. European resentment towards America is
building as the United States is blatantly disregarding United Nations and European
Union opinion that Iraq should not have come under attack. In the Middle East, the
United States is preparing to defend itself from attack in Iraq after having toppled its
government and crippled its economy and social services and is doing little to advance
the plight of the Palestinian people; and beyond that there is an assumption that America
is only looking out for its own interests in the area. In the Far East North Korea is
preparing to manufacture weapons of mass destruction as it says it feels a direct threat by
the American presence in the area. Beyond that, diplomatic relations with its neighbor
12
http://www.tswoam.co.uk/world_data/countries_eccon_sorted_gdp.html
Canada have been strained by the U.S. stance on Iraq and America’s seemingly
unwillingness to participate in the international community.
By moving the United States sharply away from the concept
of cooperative security and a world governed by international
law and established norms of behavior, and potentially
substituting unilateralism and preemption in its place, I
believe that the administration's policy runs the real risk that
the United States will become increasingly isolated and alone,
and dependent on its military might to protect its interests and
its citizens.
-California Senator Diane Feinstein in February 200313
Despite these realities, America boldly acted “with or without” the United Nations or the
broad agreement of the international community and further alienated its closest allies.
Since the end of the war in Iraq, the United States has found that the results of its
unilateral stance (despite Britain’s presence in Iraq, it is clear that it is the United States
that is spearheading the operation in Iraq: read the coalition is nothing more than two
countries and some paid supporters) have led it to an isolated position in the world’s eye
as it has been unable to find contributors of significant numbers of soldiers or funds and
its diplomatic relations throughout Europe and the Middle East have been sorely strained.
Beyond these diplomatic realities, it has also found that the Iraqi people themselves do
not take kindly to the occupation of their country by “gentiles” and Americans traveling
around the globe have encountered hostility in lieu of their position regarding the utility
of the United Nations. Despite Bush’s contentions that the Security has become severely
“weakened” as a source as world security, it is this very same council that the United
States had to creep back to earlier this fall asking those nations in the council whom it
had previously called cowards for troops and monetary aid because it was unwilling to
13
http://web.lexisnexis.com/universe/document?_m=845474203932dde552c888b09705b743&_docnum=2&wchp=dGLbVzz
-lSlAl&_md5=85bb7597bc6bb63ebcb4bcd5c9d14357
commit the resources necessary to complete the mission it had started as it had
underestimated the sizeable job of destruction that its massive military force would inflict.
THE SOLUTIONS
In order to rectify these problems America must first change its leader. Bush’s
unilateral worldview will lead America to protect its own interests feverously as opposed
to seeing the broader spectrum and consequences that international affairs entail. This can
easily occur in next year’s presidential election as the democratic counterpart for the
election must point to these critical flaws in the Bush administration’s foreign policy in
order to prevail.
I think that even if the Clinton administration had taken the same stance
on Iraq they would have had much greater success in acquiring the
required Security Council votes because it would be seen as a
multilateral administration taking a stance on one topic. The Bush
administration seems to have taken stances on every project that does
not involve direct profit to the United States.
-Stanford University Professor Nina Tannenwald
Beyond this, the United States must ensure that presidential administration changes do
not lead to complete reversal of foreign policy, as happened with the Bush
administration’s drastic change to the Clinton administration’s multilateral worldview. In
order to ensure that changes in American foreign policy do not change with different
administrations, and in order to ensure a continuous American foreign policy the United
States should form a specific foreign policy commission that exists for the sole purpose
of determining foreign policy in the context of long term international relations. This new
commission would report directly to Congress. Official presidential foreign policy
changes (i.e. signing and withdrawal from international treaties as well as U.S. stances on
United Nations related topics) would have to be approved by Congress, who would have
the benefit of this commission’s advising. This commission would have the power to
present important foreign policy proposal changes to Congress. The president would be
intimately involved in this process and would have veto power. However this veto could
be overruled by the Senate, which would be consulted only if the president chooses to
exercise his/her veto and Congress chooses to bring the case before the Senate. The
president’s foreign policy proposals would be subject to Congressional approval, and if
Congress rejects the proposal it would have to detail its problems with it and where it
could be improved to further help the United States. In the short run, the goal of this
committee should be to secure continuity in American foreign policy while integrating
international values into the current system of American politics. The ultimate goal
would be to create an American foreign policy which would sustain America’s wealth
and influence throughout the world while calming anti-American sentiment, especially in
the Middle East. By working through the United Nations to settle conflicts in the world
rather than imposing the unilateral view of the United States, America will be able to
prevent unilateral action which sparks conflict and remorse by securing America’s
international alliances and allies.
THE FUTURE DEPENDS ON THE DECISIONS OF TODAY
America can ill-afford to isolate itself in today’s nuclear world. Weapons of mass
destruction loom large in many countries, and their acquisition, which once required
billions of dollars in defense spending on research and development, can now be had on
the black market at fractions of the former cost. Much like England successfully
relinquished its world dominance at the beginning of the 20th century, America must join
the international community instead of holding on to its empyreal mercantile isolationist
worldview. This is essential to avoid the disaster of Ancient Empires such as the Roman
Empire, who held on to their superiority too long, and failed to recognize the true
moment available for compromise. The United Nations is America’s avenue to
maintaining its position of power, while sheltering itself from the backlash of those
countries who feel they are oppressed. The United Nations will bolster America’s long
term prosperity, rather than destroying as the Bush administration seems to believe.
WORKS CITED
1. Bush defends rejection of Kyoto
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/29/164418.shtml
2. Bush's speech on the future of Iraq, February 17th 2003.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/27/1046064150688.html
3. Charter of the United Nations
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
4. Country Listing by Country GDP – 2000
http://www.tswoam.co.uk/world_data/countries_eccon_sorted_gdp.html
5.
http://web.lexisnexis.com/universe/document?_m=481e29bc5a16e4b220e4a7a1a4564c6f&_docnum=11&wc
hp=dGLbVtb-lSlzV&_md5=c8240d3484d4954cc259672ec85fa0e9
6.
http://web.lexisnexis.com/universe/document?_m=845474203932dde552c888b09705b743&_docnum=2&wc
hp=dGLbVzz-lSlAl&_md5=85bb7597bc6bb63ebcb4bcd5c9d14357
7. Interview with Stanford University Professor Nina Tannenwald
8. Interview with Stanford University Professor Stephen Krasner
9. Oxford English Dictionary
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00185394/00185394se2
10. Quotes to inspire you – Ralph Nader
http://www.cyber-nation.com/victory/quotations/authors/quotes_nader_ralph.html
11. Rome Stature of the International Criminal Court
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm
12. The Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emption
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.09A.kennedy.htm
13. The Legality Of Using Force -An Op-Ed by Prof. Bruce Ackerman
http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/293/yls_article.htm
14. US ready for unilateral action against Iraq if necessary: US ambassador
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/cg/Qegypt-us-iraq.Rt4J_CDR.html
WORKS CONSULTED
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/29/164418.shtml
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/27/1046064150688.html
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
http://www.tswoam.co.uk/world_data/countries_eccon_sorted_gdp.html
http://web.lexisnexis.com/universe/document?_m=481e29bc5a16e4b220e4a7a1a4564c6f&_docnum=11&wc
hp=dGLbVtb-lSlzV&_md5=c8240d3484d4954cc259672ec85fa0e9
http://web.lexisnexis.com/universe/document?_m=845474203932dde552c888b09705b743&_docnum=2&wc
hp=dGLbVzz-lSlAl&_md5=85bb7597bc6bb63ebcb4bcd5c9d14357
Interview with Stanford University Professor Nina Tannenwald
8. Interview with Stanford University Professor Stephen Krasner
9. http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00185394/00185394se2
7.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
http://www.cyber-nation.com/victory/quotations/authors/quotes_nader_ralph.htm
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.09A.kennedy.htm
http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/293/yls_article.htm
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/cg/Qegypt-us-iraq.Rt4J_CDR.html
http://www.afpc.org/mdbr/mdbr22.htm
http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd68/68ddnr06.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/09/small.arms.conference/
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/010815202055.m991gy9y.html
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/features/kyotonotext.htm
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,168701,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/italy/03/29/environment.kyoto/
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1025/p01s04-wogi.html
http://www.state.gov/p/io/un/
http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/turfur12-98.html
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/ouster.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/dec2002/iraq-d12.shtml
http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/2001/2016.htm
http://www.lcnp.org/global/IraqOpinion10.9.02.pdf
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/12/rec.bush.abm.treaty/index.html
http://wais.stanford.edu/us_supremecourtfederalistsociety91402.html
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/6014.html
http://fpeng.peopledaily.com.cn/200011/02/eng20001102_54147.html
http://www.europaworld.org/issue62/unregret211201.htm
http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/NPT/1999prepcom/99Russia_Statement.htm
http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/CTBT/quotations.htm
http://www.space.com/news/un_antimissile_991202_wg.html
http://www.cunr.org/priorities/treaties.htm#Anti-Ballistic%20Missile%20Treaty%20(ABM)