The relationship between life and the right dedication Stefano Rodota interesting reflections in his life and the rules, Feltrinelli, 2009. If there is one area of life where the law has great difficulty in penetrating it, as demonstrated by the tragic events of recent days, just to the war. As we have always striven Democratic Lawyers, ever since the first Gulf War, to highlight the fundamental difference between a use of force internationally, lawful because authorized by the United Nations, and the war, prohibited as such by international law .
To this end the Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations had provided a guarantee system, based on the relationship between the Security Council and Military Staff Committee, which has never come into being because this committee was never established. It follows that the powers to the actions of international police and turn them into war, thus violating the prohibition of international law.
That Libya is a case in point. According to the Resolution 1973, military action was intended to protect civilians, a few days of its adoption we see instead a large-scale bombing on Libya, whose victims are civilians themselves, of course, but, day in and day out, the Clinton repeats (and the helpful Frattini, moving from the role of the human stool rais to the more usual, docile pet of the Yankees, the echoes), that the true aim of war is Gaddafi, the new symbol of absolute evil.
"We had to kill the rebels in Benghazi?" Ask at this point the supporters of the intervention. This question has three answers from three different points of view, but basically complementary: 1. They have never seen the insurgents who, after losing the insurgency, asking for help to foreign powers.
A more careful analysis, the so-called revolutionaries in Benghazi are a part of the old regime that came into conflict with Gaddafi (see about the interesting analysis contained in www. Counterparties. Org). 2. Timely policy (word deprecated and with some justification from the generation of Big Brother, but who nevertheless retains his rationality and sense) of the international community would have saved many more lives and the prospect of national reconciliation in Libya.
But the powers are not much interested in the lives of civilians and peace, good excuses only for fools, as oil and natural gas in Libya, to get through a rift in the country. 3. Because at this point do not stop, because the Libyan government has declared a cease-fire and many of the States also have supported the 1973 resolution, such as Russia, China and urge the Arab League? And Italy is doing? The temporary disappearance from the scene obscene midget there has certainly left an international image as dignified, if it is true that behind the amiable old man who is anxious to repeat that "we are not at war," La Russa peeps sinister, declaring that we are ready for anything ...
There is certainly a better Italy, but those who represent it today? 
To this end the Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations had provided a guarantee system, based on the relationship between the Security Council and Military Staff Committee, which has never come into being because this committee was never established. It follows that the powers to the actions of international police and turn them into war, thus violating the prohibition of international law.
That Libya is a case in point. According to the Resolution 1973, military action was intended to protect civilians, a few days of its adoption we see instead a large-scale bombing on Libya, whose victims are civilians themselves, of course, but, day in and day out, the Clinton repeats (and the helpful Frattini, moving from the role of the human stool rais to the more usual, docile pet of the Yankees, the echoes), that the true aim of war is Gaddafi, the new symbol of absolute evil.
"We had to kill the rebels in Benghazi?" Ask at this point the supporters of the intervention. This question has three answers from three different points of view, but basically complementary: 1. They have never seen the insurgents who, after losing the insurgency, asking for help to foreign powers.
A more careful analysis, the so-called revolutionaries in Benghazi are a part of the old regime that came into conflict with Gaddafi (see about the interesting analysis contained in www. Counterparties. Org). 2. Timely policy (word deprecated and with some justification from the generation of Big Brother, but who nevertheless retains his rationality and sense) of the international community would have saved many more lives and the prospect of national reconciliation in Libya.
But the powers are not much interested in the lives of civilians and peace, good excuses only for fools, as oil and natural gas in Libya, to get through a rift in the country. 3. Because at this point do not stop, because the Libyan government has declared a cease-fire and many of the States also have supported the 1973 resolution, such as Russia, China and urge the Arab League? And Italy is doing? The temporary disappearance from the scene obscene midget there has certainly left an international image as dignified, if it is true that behind the amiable old man who is anxious to repeat that "we are not at war," La Russa peeps sinister, declaring that we are ready for anything ...
There is certainly a better Italy, but those who represent it today?
No comments:
Post a Comment