Case Studies (Caroline and Nicaragua)

He is in violation kicked out inspectors wont

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: es from article 51, but you also need the state that suffered the attack to call for help. Victim state must admit weakness, not always a good idea. According to 51 in courts interpretation. They jump that not only victim state must act for help, the state acting in self- defense must report to security council . if you don’t report it, not necessarily illegal, but will be used against you, b/c the question will be raised as to whether you are using it for other illegal means. o US believes Saddam as WMD, 5 or so years before has nukes, threat not only to our allies but to us. Intent to use against Israel and us. He is in violation, kicked out inspectors, won’t dismantle nuclear program. argue for anticipatory attack: Caroline incident says you would have to argue that imminent overwhelming attack has to becoming to you. How imminent is this? Saddam didn’t have this capacity. Did chemical and biological weapons cut it? Does it qualify as “overwhelming”? He’s five yrs out from having a nuke....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 01/13/2014 for the course GOVT 403 taught by Professor Catherinebethlotrionte during the Fall '13 term at Georgetown.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online