Agorism
03-24-2011, 03:13 PM
http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/24/the_united_states_and_its_allies_explore_legal_cas e_for_arming_the_libyan_rebels
Paragraph 4 of [the UN] resolution provides sweeping authority to U.N. member states “to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970, to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.” The notwithstanding clause, which was proposed by the United States, provides for an unspecified exemption from the embargo, according to diplomats…
Council diplomats say [Susan] Rice gave no hint that the clause would be used as a pretext to arm the rebels. “The clear perception of the large majority of the council is that it would not open the door to arming the rebels,” the council diplomat said…
U.N. diplomats say the exemption would technically provide a legal basis for limited supplies of weapons to rebels, as long as they could make the case that they were needed to forestall a government attack against civilian targets. But they warned that it could poison the U.S. relationship with other council members, who may feel they have been misled about the intent of the language.
Paragraph 4 of [the UN] resolution provides sweeping authority to U.N. member states “to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970, to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.” The notwithstanding clause, which was proposed by the United States, provides for an unspecified exemption from the embargo, according to diplomats…
Council diplomats say [Susan] Rice gave no hint that the clause would be used as a pretext to arm the rebels. “The clear perception of the large majority of the council is that it would not open the door to arming the rebels,” the council diplomat said…
U.N. diplomats say the exemption would technically provide a legal basis for limited supplies of weapons to rebels, as long as they could make the case that they were needed to forestall a government attack against civilian targets. But they warned that it could poison the U.S. relationship with other council members, who may feel they have been misled about the intent of the language.