Kerry outlined several points of the plan, which would see the “rapid assumption of control by the international community” of Syria’s chemical weapons. He further stressed US-Russia commitment to the complete destruction of not only of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, but also its production and refinement capabilities.
Syria will also become a party to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which outlaws their production and use. On Saturday, the UN said it had received all documents necessary for Syria to join the chemical weapons convention and that Syria would come under the treaty in 30 days starting on October 14.
Damascus must submit within a week’s time – “and not 30 days” – a complete inventory of related arms, “including names, types, and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions, and location and form of storage, production and research and development facilities."
...Syria must destroy all of its weapons. It was possible that the Syrian rebels have some chemical weapons, [Kerry] acknowledged.
The Syrian government should provide the OPCW, the UN and other supporting personnel “with the immediate and unfettered right to inspect any and all sites in Syria.” Lavrov later said that security for all international inspectors on the ground should be provided for not only by the government, but opposition forces as well.
Although President Assad immediately acquiesced to the Russian-backed plan, rebel forces have resisted efforts which have staved off Western intervention in the country.
On Saturday, the Free Syrian Army rejected a US-Russian deal as a stalling tactic and vowed to continue fighting to topple the Assad government.
The Russian-American initiative does not concern us. It only seeks to gain time," said Salim Idriss, the chief of the FSA command, said.
We completely ignore this initiative and will continue to fight to bring down the regime," he told a press conference Saturday in the Turkish city of Istanbul.
If Damascus fails to comply with the plan, a response in accordance with UN Charter Chapter 7 will follow, Kerry said, in a reference to the use of military force. The chapter provides for "action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security" in the event other measures fail.
States are typically bound by customary international law regardless of whether the states have codified these laws domestically or through treaties.
In short, there is no sovereignty of nation states at the UN. Nation states can only opt out of UN dictats at the threat of force. "Rebels" are apparently free to make war on nation states and commit war crimes against the citizenry too, as long as they act as security guards for UN inspectors. If the "FSA" can escalate enough conflict to impede Syria's ability to comply with the imposed time limits (which would likely be a strain even for countries with no internal strife), then the UN and its lackeys intend to reward them with the deployment of America's Military to assist them. Such a deal. /s
Out of the UN now, America.
Edited for highlighting and punctuation.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The General Purpose Criterion [i]s an important concept in International law which broadly governs international agreements with respect to chemical weapons (CW). Although the term is not found within such agreements, it is "regularly used" to describe the comprehensive nature of prohibitions regarding all CW.
The scope of this criterion broadly governs the purpose of chemical agents opposed to specific objects. Therefor the prohibitions are not limited to a specific list, but encompass all CW to include future incarnations.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The Lieber Code of April 24, 1863, also known as Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, General Order No. 100, or Lieber Instructions, was an instruction signed by President Abraham Lincoln to the Union Forces of the United States during the American Civil War that dictated how soldiers should conduct themselves in wartime.
The main sections were concerned with martial law, military jurisdiction, and the treatment of spies, deserters and prisoners of war.
widely considered to be the first written recital of the customary law of war, in force between the civilized nations and peoples since time immemorial, and the precursor to the Hague Regulations of 1907, the treaty-based restatement of the customary law of war.
while it is true that commanders such as William Tecumseh Sherman rarely if ever consulted the Code in making combat decisions, the Code played a significant role nonetheless in the war's last two years. It provided a blueprint for hundreds of military commissions charging law of war violations. The Lieber Code was used extensively during the Philippine-American War as a justification and later a defense for actions against the native population
Both the Lieber Code and the Hague Regulations of 1907, which took much of the Lieber Code and wrote it into the international treaty law, included practices that would be considered illegal or extremely questionable by today's standards.
The Lieber Code was used extensively during the Philippine-American War as a justification and later a defense for actions against the native population
a series of international treaties and declarations negotiated at two international peace conferences at The Hague in the Netherlands.
The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 were the first multilateral treaties that addressed the conducts of warfare and were largely based on the Lieber Code, which was signed and issued by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln to the Union Forces of the United States in April 24, 1863, during the American Civil War.
the [Lieber] codes were widely regarded as the best summary of the first customary laws and customs of war in the 19th century
Much of the regulations in the Hague Conventions were borrowed heavily from the Lieber Code.
Though not negotiated in The Hague, the Geneva Protocol to the Hague Conventions is considered an addition to the Conventions. Signed on 17 June 1925 and entering into force on 8 February 1928, its single article permanently bans the use of all forms of chemical and biological warfare. The protocol grew out of the increasing public outcry against chemical warfare following the use of mustard gas and similar agents in World War I, and fears that chemical and biological warfare could lead to horrific consequences in any future war. The protocol has since been augmented by the Biological Weapons Convention (1972) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (1993).
After World War II, the judges of the military tribunal of the Trial of German Major War Criminals at Nuremberg Trials found that by 1939, the rules laid down in the 1907 Hague Convention were recognised by all civilised nations and were regarded as declaratory of the laws and customs of war. Under this post-war decision, a country did not have to have ratified the 1907 Hague Convention in order to be bound by them.
Cross-referencing Posts #17 and #18 Re: The League of Nations and the Geneva Protocol at 4um Title: John McCain and Lindsey Graham criticise US-Russia deal on Syria
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The Martens Clause was introduced into the preamble to the 1899 Hague Convention II – Laws and Customs of War on Land.
The clause took its name from a declaration read by Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens, the Russian delegate at the Hague Peace Conferences 1899 and was based upon his words
The Clause appears in a slightly modified form in the 1907 Hague conventions
The Clause was introduced as a compromise wording for the dispute between the Great Powers who considered francs-tireurs to be unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture and smaller states who maintained that they should be considered lawful combatants.
The clause did not appear in the Geneva Conventions of 1949, but was it included in the additional protocols of 1977. It is in article 1 paragraph 2 of Protocol I (which covers international conflicts), and the fourth paragraph of the preamble to Protocol II (which covers non-international conflicts). The wording in both is identical but slightly modified from the version used in the Hague Convention of 1907
In its commentary (Geneva 1987) the ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] states that although the Martens Clause is considered to be part of customary international law, the plenipotentiaries considered its inclusion appropriate because:
it is not possible for any codification to be complete at any given moment; thus the Martens clause prevents the assumption that anything which is not explicitly prohibited by the relevant treaties is therefore permitted. Secondly, it should be seen as a dynamic factor proclaiming the applicability of the principles mentioned regardless of subsequent developments of types of situation or technology.
Rupert Ticehurst, a Lecturer in Law, at King's College School of Law in London, writes that:
The problem faced by humanitarian lawyers is that there is no accepted interpretation of the Martens Clause. It is therefore subject to a variety of interpretations, both narrow and expansive. At its most restricted, the Clause serves as a reminder that customary international law continues to apply after the adoption of a treaty norm. A wider interpretation is that, as few international treaties relating to the laws of armed conflict are ever complete, the Clause provides that something which is not explicitly prohibited by a treaty is not ipso facto permitted. The widest interpretation is that conduct in armed conflicts is not only judged according to treaties and custom but also to the principles of international law referred to by the Clause.
The evidence that Ticehurst presents is that just as in 1899 there was a disagreement between the great powers and the minor powers that lead to the formulation of the Clause, so in 1996 a similar divergence of views exists between the declared nuclear powers and the non nuclear powers with the nuclear powers taking a narrow view of the Clause and the non nuclear powers taking a more expansive view.
Ticehurst concludes that:
... By refusing to ratify treaties or to consent to the development of corresponding customary norms, the powerful military States can control the content of the laws of armed conflict. Other States are helpless to prohibit certain technology possessed by the powerful military States. ... the Martens Clause establishes an objective means of determining natural law: the dictates of the public conscience. This makes the laws of armed conflict much richer, and permits the participation of all States in its development. The powerful military States have constantly opposed the influence of natural law on the laws of armed conflict even though these same States relied on natural law for the prosecutions at Nuremberg. The ICJ in its Advisory Opinion did not clarify the extent to which the Martens Clause permits notions of natural law to influence the development of the laws of armed conflict. Consequently, its correct interpretation remains unclear. The Opinion has, however, facilitated an important debate on this significant and frequently overlooked clause of the laws of armed conflict.
Several national and international courts have considered the Martens Clause when making their judgements. In none of these cases however have the laws of humanity or the dictates of the public conscience been recognised as new and independent right. The clause served rather as general statement for humanitarian principles as well as guideline to the understanding and interpretation of existing rules of international law.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The Clause was introduced as a compromise wording for the dispute between the Great Powers who considered francs-tireurs to be unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture and smaller states who maintained that they should be considered lawful combatants.
From the Wikipedia link above for francs-tireurs:
French for "free shooters" [also translates as Mavericks]
used to describe irregular military formations deployed by France during the early stages of the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71). The term was revived and used by partisans to name two major French Resistance movements set up to fight against the Germans during World War II.
It is sometimes used to refer more generally to guerrilla fighters who operate outside the laws of war.
During the wars of the French Revolution, a franc-tireur was a member of a corps of light infantry organized separately from the regular army. The Spanish word francotirador and the Portuguese word franco-atirador, meaning sharpshooter or sniper, are derived from the word franc-tireur.
Francs-tireurs were an outgrowth of rifle clubs or unofficial military societies formed in the east of France at the time of the Luxembourg crisis of 1867 (see History of Luxembourg). The members were chiefly concerned with the practice of rifle-shooting. In case of war, they were expected to act as militia [milice/miliciens] or light troops. They wore no uniforms, but they armed themselves with the best existing rifles, and elected their own officers.
In an article in the September 13, 1919 issue of Illustrated London News, the writer G. K. Chesterton responded to [German General Erich] Ludendorff's book by remarking:
... What is a "franc-tireur"? A "franc-tireur" is a free man, who fights to defend his own farm or family against foreign aggressors, but who does not happen to possess certain badges and articles of clothing catalogued by Prussia in 1870. In other words, a "franc-tireur" is you or I or any other healthy man who found himself, when attacked, in accidental possession of a gun or pistol, and not in accidental possession of a particular cap or a particular pair of trousers.
Before the two world wars, the term franc-tireur was sometimes used for an armed fighter who, if captured, was not necessarily entitled to prisoner of war status. An issue of disagreement at the 1899 Hague Conference, the controversy generated the Martens Clause. The Martens Clause was introduced as a compromise between the Great Powers, who considered francs-tireurs to be unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture, and smaller states, who maintained that they should be considered lawful combatants.
Two major [French] Résistance groups adopted the name Franc-Tireur during the German occupation of France during the Second World War. The first to be established was the Franc-Tireur (movement), founded in Lyons in 1940. The second was Francs-tireurs partisans [FTP aka National Front (French Resistance) - faction established as the military branch of the French Communist Party (PCF).]
After World War II, during the Hostages Trial (or, officially, United States v. Wilhelm List, et al., 11 Tr. of War Crim. Bef. Nuremberg Mil. Trib. 1248 (1948)), the seventh of the Nuremberg Trials, the tribunal found that, on the question of partisans, according to the then-current laws of war (the Hague Convention No. IV from 1907), the partisan fighters in southeast Europe could not be considered lawful belligerents under Article 1 of said convention.
The Geneva Conventions established new protocols, namely, according to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, francs-tireurs are entitled to prisoner-of-war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Edited to include additional translation at line 2.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The U.N. should be dissolved like the League of Nations was.
At the least, US should stop funding it.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
the United States’ effort to get rid of its own stockpile has now taken 28 years and $35 billion [NYT estimates] — and it is not yet over. Over the years, the United States has led the world in developing special furnaces that scrub out dangerous waste products, and it has created methods to react the material with water and other chemicals to permanently undo the toxic structures. It has built seven destruction plants across the world, including at Johnston Atoll in the Pacific and the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, and it is in the process of building two more, at Richmond, Ky., and Pueblo, Colo.
Beyond the money, there are plenty of questions that remain unanswered: what will be destroyed in-country, and what will have to be taken out of Syria for destruction? Can 1,000 tons of chemical weapons be airlifted? Taken over-land through a civil war? Taken out via cargo ships?
Secretary of State Kerry and his Russian counterpart are currently working with their top chemical weapons experts to try to solve these sticky logistical problems. And the U.S. has some experience destroying chemical weapons in hard- to-reach areas. For example, the CTR [Cooperative Threat Reduction] program eliminated 16 tons of chemical weapons from Albania [circa 2004?] by building a disposal facility in Germany and shipping the entire building into Albania. Former Defense Secretary William Perry wisely called this program “defense by other means.”
Heard some of Rush Limbaugh's program the other day criticizing Assad and Syria as if he is oblivious to any of that. These are basic issues that reporters and commentators are not much addressing responsibly.
Edited for highlighting.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The U.N. should be dissolved like the League of Nations was.
At the least, US should stop funding it.
Yes. "Cliff Notes" on these sources: The U.N. is imposing as International Law (at the threat of force/war) whatever it claims at whim to be a "civilized custom/norm", treaty or no treaty. It insists, for example, that the defunct League of Nations' Geneva Protocols banning chemical weapons are still binding even if countries aren't signatories of it but Syria, which is a Geneva Protocol signatory, is being threatened with war and not the remaining UN member states, which have not acceded or succeeded to the Protocol.
The NRA is asking for donations to help it prevent an Anti-2A treaty being signed and ratified. Not only does it seem more concerned about money than the Unconstitutionality of that, it seems unconcerned too that it doesn't matter, according to the U.N., if there's a formal treaty or not about something that it wants enforced.
Edited to try and correct the link but still not working right. Scroll down to the Non-signatory states chart for that Geneva Protocol info at the Wikipedia site.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
(R2P or RtoP) is a United Nations initiative established in 2005. It consists of an emerging intended norm, or set of principles, based on the claim that sovereignty is not a right, but a responsibility
In the international community R2P is a norm, not a law, however it is [allegedly] grounded in international law.
The authority to employ the last resort and intervene militarily rests solely with United Nations Security Council.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has expressed grave concern over Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal, saying it presents the greatest threat to the peace and security in the Middle East.
[Transcription from the video] “The Islamic Republic of Iran expresses its deep concern over the serious negative implications on security in the region as well as the reliability of the global non-proliferation regime whereby Israeli scientists are generously provided access to the nuclear facilities of a certain nuclear weapon state while nuclear scientists of NPT (the Non-Proliferation Treaty) parties are being assassinated instead,” Reza Najafi, Iranian Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said in the Austrian capital Vienna on Friday.
Iranian scientists Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, Dariush Rezaeinejad, Professor Majid Shahriari, and Professor Masoud Ali-Mohammadi were all assassinated by Israeli agents, according to Iran.
The draft was put forward by 32 countries during the 57th annual session of the IAEA General Conference in Vienna to criticize Israel's refusal to acknowledge its possession of nuclear weapons.
The proposed resolution was defeated by a vote of 54 to 43, with 32 abstentions. The other 30 countries were absent during the vote.
On Friday September 20 2013, on the last day of the 57th General Conference held in Vienna, fifty one member states of the IAEA voted in favour of Israel keeping its nuclear weapons and against a draft resolution (GC(57) 1.3) submitted by the Arab States regarding israeli “Nuclear Capabilities”, which called on Israel to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 42 countries vote in favour of the resolution and 32 abstained.
US and israeli delegates were seen during the morning wandering the conference room and systematically meeting with all country delegations, speaking to delegates representing small countries which rely on US and EU financial aid. It was clear that the US and israeli representatives to the IAEA “recommended” to these other countries to vote against the draft resolution introduced by the Arab states.
The thwarting of the draft resolution on israeli Nuclear Weapons clearly shows the double standards of the state members of the IAEA towards the major issue of the Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction, which threaten the security of the whole region.
The USA and Canada “justified” their rejection claiming that the draft introduced by the Arab states is backed by Iran, which “seeks a nuclear arms capability” according to their abstruse claims.
The US envoy to the IAEA, Joseph Macmanus, claimed that “targeting its close ally would only hurt broader steps aimed at banning nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in the tinderbox region”. [???] He even regretted that the resolution was brought to a vote.
[Article Comment at the site: "Israel gets to have nuke’s and Arab nation’s are not allowed to protect themselves or their population from Israeli and U.S. attack or aggression? Makes you wonder who’s really running things behind the scene."]
Iran is seeking what the West still calls "clean energy" for us, despite Fukushima, Chernobyl, etc. dilemmas -- a "lower carbon footprint" by reducing fossil-fuel use, which the UN's "Saturday Night Live Coneheads" agenda supposedly incentivizes by way of its carbon unit taxation-penalty scheme to counter "Global Warming/Climate Change". What were the previous excuses for countries opposing a Middle East WMD-Free Zone in favor of Israel's WMD armament before Iran's recent power plant utilities project, such as other countries have without threat of punishment even though they are far more prone to war than Iran?
Cross-referencing Posts #2, #3 and #4 on Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program at 4um Title: Nuclear Chess
Decades ago, America "help(ed) Iran set up the full nuclear fuel cycle along with atomic power plants." At the time, Washington said "nuclear power would provide for the growing needs of our economy and free our remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."
Edited sentence one of the paragraph before the Atoms for Peace section.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The NRA is asking for donations to help it prevent an Anti-2A treaty being signed and ratified. Not only does it seem more concerned about money than the Unconstitutionality of that, it seems unconcerned too that it doesn't matter, according to the U.N., if there's a formal treaty or not about something that it wants enforced.
"The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms," Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement.
"The administration is wasting precious time trying to sign away our laws to the global community and unelected U.N. bureaucrats," [Sen. Jim Inhofe, R- Okla.] wrote.
Many violence-wracked countries, including Congo and South Sudan, are also expected to sign. The coalition said their signature -- and ratification -- will make it more difficult for illicit arms to cross borders.
The U.N. treaty will take effect after 50 countries ratify it,
The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.
It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.
In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about.
Mission accomplished for the shadowy/showy arms trafficking/"rebel" training, Saudi Prince "Bandar Bush" Al Qaeda troupes in Syria?
Even if a rogue Senate ratifies a treaty that violates the Constitution, it would still be Constitutionally invalid and the NRA is enabling the power-game illusions to undermine the Constitution by not addressing the fact that it would be invalid.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Even if a rogue Senate ratifies a treaty that violates the Constitution, it would still be Constitutionally invalid and the NRA is enabling the power-game illusions to undermine the Constitution by not addressing the fact that it would be invalid.
4 minute interview of Judge Napolitano on U.N. Arms Trade Treaty issues:
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Cross-referencing Posts #17 and #18 Re: The League of Nations and the Geneva Protocol at 4um Title: John McCain and Lindsey Graham criticise US-Russia deal on Syria
Also cross-referencing Post #20 there for more on the Geneva Protocol, Chemical Weapons Convention/CWC, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons/OPCW, Syria, Libya, etc. U.N. improvisations.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
(R2P or RtoP) is a United Nations initiative established in 2005. It consists of an emerging intended norm, or set of principles, based on the claim that sovereignty is not a right, but a responsibility
In the international community R2P is a norm, not a law, however it is [allegedly] grounded in international law.
The authority to employ the last resort and intervene militarily rests solely with United Nations Security Council.
Cross-referencing 4um sources with more on the UN topic of Responsibility to Protect (aka R2P, RtoP):
The world’s Superpower has recently found a crafty way to get round international law. It is called the ‘Responsibility to Protect‘ (R2P). This sneaky little device now gives America and its allies carte blanche to meddle in any part of the world they want—in order to “protect” people from their own governments.