New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

lchic - 06:48pm Mar 17, 2003 EST (# 10123 of 10137)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

......... Furthermore, even if Resolution 1441 were not read to authorise military action, the use of force against Hussein's regime at this time would be legally justified on the basis of the UN Charter and the right of individual and collective self-defence, realistically interpreted.

In categorically rejecting the right of the coalition to resort to force against Iraq, the authors adhere to an overly static view of the UN Charter provisions on armed force.

The charter contemplated that the Security Council would have "primary responsibility" for maintaining international peace and security. But it did not, nor could it reasonably, expect the council to trump forever a state's inherent right to defend itself, either alone or with allies, against actual or imminent attacks. Nor could it freeze forever the manner in which such concepts as "necessity", "proportionality" or "imminence" are interpreted.

It is both reasonable and necessary, in the wake of September 11, to interpret these terms in the light of changing conditions and dangers, and especially the vastly increased threat of terrorist violence and its support by rogue states.

States cannot be required to wait for a devastating terrorist attack to actually occur before taking measures of self-defence against states. Nor should the prohibition on the use of force be interpreted to bar such use for purposes of humanitarian intervention.

The authors of the joint letter are understandably concerned that any attack on Iraq will inevitably entail the loss of innocent life. War is certainly detestable. But to argue that the use of force against Iraq must necessarily violate international humanitarian law is a major expansion of international law beyond its current limits.

Whether force has been used contrary to international humanitarian law can only be evaluated after the event and in light of all the evidence, weighing the military advantage anticipated against the foreseeable harm to civilians, according to the established principles of reasonableness and proportionality. There is no reason to presume that a breach by coalition forces of the humanitarian laws of armed conflict will occur.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the joint letter is the warning that if Australia dares join the attack on Iraq, it may face a spate of future "war crimes" trials before the International Criminal Court.

The alarm thus sounded appears consistent with the worst fears of critics of the ICC, who argued that such a tribunal would more likely deter democracies acting in defence of international legal standards and human rights than it would a Saddam Hussein.

Finally, we believe that morally it is necessary to consider the costs to be borne in ruling out the use of force. Hussein continues to torment his people, foster international terrorism and develop an illegal arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. In addition, the authority of the Security Council under Chapter VII is being damaged.

Twelve years of resolutions and sanctions, and promising dire consequences, have not brought Iraq into compliance. When a policeman refuses to enforce the law, and gives a series of hollow "last chances", there comes a point when citizens and criminals alike lose respect for both him and the law.

Darin Bartram (partner – Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington); Joe Berinson (former attorney-general – WA); Anthony Bergin (associate professor of law – UNSW); Neil Brown QC (former attorney-general of Australia); Lee Casey (partner – Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, former legal adviser to US Department of Justice); David Flint AM (professor emeritus of law, University of Technology, Sydney); Stephen Hall (associate professor of law, City University of Hong Kong); Gary Herz, solicitor; Stan Kalinko (managing partner, Deacons Lawyers); Ian Lacey, solicitor; Mark Leibler, AO (senior partner – Arnold Bloch Leibler); Judith Levitan, lawyer; Michael O

(14 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense