Today is the anniversay of the Kellogg-Briand Pact
And here we discussing yet another war while the DOJ goes to court looking for immunity for Bush and the other war criminals who started the Iraq War... Perhaps they're hoping to establish a precedent.
[div class = "excerpt"]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg%E2%80%93Briand_Pact
The Kellogg–Briand Pact (or Pact of Paris, officially General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy[1]) was a 1928 international agreement in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them".[2] Parties failing to abide by this promise "should be denied the benefits furnished by this treaty". It was signed by Germany, France and the United States on August 27, 1928, and by most other nations soon after. Sponsored by France and the U.S., the Pact renounced the use of war and called for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Similar provisions were incorporated into the UN Charter and other treaties and it became a stepping stone to a more activist American policy.[3] It is named after its authors: United States Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand...
The 1928 Kellogg–Briand Pact was concluded outside the League of Nations, and remains a binding treaty under international law...
...Notably, the pact served as the legal basis for the creation of the notion of crime against peace – it was for committing this crime that the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of people responsible for starting World War II.
The interdiction of aggressive war was confirmed and broadened by the United Nations Charter, which provides in article 2, paragraph 4, that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." One legal consequence of this is that it is clearly unlawful to annex territory by force. However, neither this, nor the original treaty have prevented the subsequent use of annexation. More broadly, there is a strong presumption against the legality of using, or threatening, military force against another country. Nations that have resorted to the use of force since the Charter came into effect have typically invoked self-defense or the right of collective defense.
= new reply since forum marked as read
