Legal aspects of the current conflict
from eurowatch - 17.07.2006 16:45
Lets consider the following scenario of an affair between a number of United Nations member states.
State A has declared war against state B, not because it had the power to start and win such a war, but as a means to obtain this power over the time. In the course of the process, state A has gradually taken state C hostage, and turned it into a weapon against state B, and as the latter defends itself, state C turns to the United Nations for help. The proposal of a ceasefire is of little effect, because it would require the corrupted sovereignty of state C being temporarily taken over by the United Nations, that would be to find a replacement for the involvement of state B with third states. Meanwhile state A is suspending fundamental negotiations over its relationship to the United Nations, while repeating its declarations of war against state B. The scenario taken as is, what are the legal options?
The United Nations can positively respond to the ceasefire request of state C by suspending the membership of state A until the fundamental negotiations over its status have achieved results. The time dimensions of A's various interactions with the United Nations - be it in fundamental negotiations or activities through third states - need to be synchronized. Reentry into force of full United Nations membership status must be linked to the event of fundamental negotiations reaching the renounciation of said declarations of war by member state A. Since not only the war, but also the underlying misunderstanding of the purpose of a declaration of war originate from the sovereignty failure of state A, the hitherto waiver of the suspension of its membership by the United Nations has been a goodwill gesture to initiate the fundamental negotiations. State C, though seemingly primarily engaged with state B, can only be helped when what may have appeared as a conflict between states B and C is indeed part of conflict between state A and the United Nations.
In this case, A is Iran, B is Israel and C is Lebanon. Khameneis declarations of war against Israel through proxy of Lebanon put Iran at the choice whether these are statements of a political leader, for which the government is liable with all its assets, or of a private figure who is not assigned any constitutional function. In either case, these hostile statements are in contradiction to the fundamental negotiations, yet the Iranian sovereignty failure can be resolved in the United Nations as the negotiations move to discuss its constitutional origin, the current political system of Iran and how it can be transformed. While guilty of taking Lebanon hostage, Iran is itself hostage of such action and must be let to take back its sovereignty from the waliyat al-faqih, instead of leaving it to them. That is best achieved when the United Nations suspend the membership of Iran until this transfer has taken place.
Homepage: http://www.leader.ir/
