Зелёный Социализм

IndexConclusion: Critical Remarks

Following my analysis, an occasional reader might ask: what is to be done with possible violations of international law? If standards were breached or laws violated, could there be place for State responsibility or any forms of war crime tribunals? Unfortunately I cannot afford answering these questions. Each individual violation might require research, far overstretching the space of this thesis.
In that sense, my research looks at primary rules applicable and not at the consequences of possible breaches of these primary rules. Yet the controversy remains within the fact that of the total amount of breaches being numerous and systematic.
The reason that we need to realize the controversies is that we may find ways to improve our system. Without criticism of our mistakes, we may never start searching for reparation. Ignorance will cause the repetition of the same mistake over and over again.

Connecting the dots. Considering all the controversial factors we may draw a conclusion of what ought to be done in future scenarios.

1. The use of ambiguous terms in any mandate’s terminology ought to be avoided. A ought to be described by exact, agreed upon terms with clear distinction of what is permitted and what is not.

IndexIus In Bello

Besides the controversies regarding the Ius ad bellum, there are numerous controversies pertaining the acceptability of conduct, during the execution of the given mandate.
The execution of the mandate has multiple debatable topics, distinguishing the edge between civilians and combatants, those who ought to be defended or targeted, assisting advancing rebel armies with air support, choosing sides in a civil war and finally targeting the head of a hostile state.
Let us analyze the controversy.

Civilians or Combatants?

An important issue in our research plays the interpretation of civilians vs (legal) combatants in international law. The international law forbids targeting civilians in an armed conflict; even more this has been one of basic justifications for the exceptional use of force in the mandate. Yet in a civil war, the boundaries between civilians and combatants are not always clear, as civilians take up to arms and military often fights for civil causes.
In order to understand to which means the mandate stretches, we require having a clear distinction between civilians and combatants. This will allow us to answer a question: Has the mandate been executed in accordance with the legal framework, norms and customs of the International Law?

IndexIus Ad Bellum

As the classical theory on the use of force goes, there ought to be three basic, philosophical principles behind justification for war. [7] 1.A just cause 2. carried out by a proper authority 3. and the final objective must always be peace. However, as time passed, it became clear that the use of force could only be regulated via the sanctioning of an international judiciary body- the UN system. In order to prevent the excessive use of force, the international community created a general prohibition of the unilateral use of force, based in art. 2(4) UN charter. Which meant that states were allowed to use force only in self-defense or after direct permission by the UN SC. [8]
The 20^th century ius ad bellum would strongly be dominated by the view that a resort to the use of force should severely be limited by the prohibition set forth in art 2(4). [9]

Такой человек, как Муаммар Каддафи, заслуживает общую любовь и уважение всех, которые на стороне Добра.

Журналист спрашивает Муаммара Каддафи, боится ли он смерти и говорит что его могут убить, потому что, например, правительство такой великой державы, как США, желает ему смерти. На что Муаммар Каддафи просто отвечает с улыбкой, что нет, не боится.

14.01.2011

Кадры ещё мирного Триполи в последние месяцы перед агрессией.

01.08.2012

28.09.2009

Muammar Gaddafi in New York. Larry King interviews him on Bin Laden and 9/11 - "Bush elevated Bin Laden to a hero in the Muslim world - that is not a status he should have". "I don't think there is a court verdict that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11", "The hijackers were not from Iraq, nor Afghanistan - they were trained in the US, not in Afghanistan, nor Iraq." "The planes took of from JFKennedy airport not from Afghanistan nor Iraq". The interviewer changes quickly subject to "Isratine" - Palestine and Israel should join into One state, the only realistic solution.

By Dan Murphy, Staff writer / 01.08.2012

Seven Iranian Red Crescent members were abducted in downtown Benghazi yesterday. Today there were bomb blasts and a jail break.

01.08.2012 | Mohyeddin Sajedi

File photo shows Syrian armed opposition in the city of Aleppo in northern Syria.

In Syria’s northern city of Umm al Amud, large pictures of the imprisoned founder and leader of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), Abdullah Ocalan, are hung alongside flags of the armed separatist rebels.

01.08.2012

Документальный фильм о терактах в Сирии. С записями камер слежения на улицах, с рассказами о личностях террористов и интервью с их родственниками и их жертвами. Субтитры на английском языке.

http://anhar.livejournal.com/1839879.html

This particular recording was from Baltimore CBS affiliate WMAR Channel 2, but I assume this also aired on local Chicago TV on Sunday, March 23rd 1980.

8 July 2012 | by Pepe Escobar

The tension and likelihood of a world war because of the conflict in Syria is currently on the cards because certain countries are behaving like arsonists, especially Turkey, in continuing to offer a logistical base for mercenaries from "liberated" Libya. Saudi Arabia’s ruling House of Saud will keep providing the money to buy them weapons. As for Washington, London and Paris, they will continue to calibrate their tactics in the protracted anticipation of a NATO attack against Damascus.

A Film By SBS
Distributed By Journeyman Pictures