Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:44, 12 September 2009

Unfinished template

History of Iraq
Ancient Iraq 9,500 B.C.E. - 5,500 B.C.E.
Pre-Pottery Neolithic · Jarmo Hassuna culture · Halafian culture
Sumerian Civilization 5,500 B.C.E. - 2,000 B.C.E.
Samarran culture · Eridu Ubaid period · Uruk period Jemdet Nasr period Early Dynastic period Akkadian Empire · Gutian dynasty Neo-Sumerian Empire
Assyria and Babylonia 2,000 B.C.E. - 640 C.E.
Amorites · Hurrians · Mitanni Hittites · Kassites · Aramaeans Neo-Assyrian Empire · Neo-Babylonian Empire Chaldea · Median Empire Achaemenid Assyria · Seleucid Empire Arsacid Empire · Roman Empire Sassanid Empire · Asuristan
Islamic Golden Age 640 C.E. - 1258 C.E.
Islamic conquest of Iraq Rashidun Caliphate · Umayyad Caliphate Abbasid Caliphate Ayyubid dynasty · Zengid dynasty
1258 C.E. - 1508 C.E.
Mongol invasion of Iraq Ilkhanate · Jalayirid Sultanate Kara Koyunlu · Ak Koyunlu
Modern Era 1508 C.E. - Present
Safavid dynasty · Ottoman Empire Mamluk rule in Iraq British Mandate of Mesopotamia Kingdom of Iraq · Republic of Iraq

[[Category:Iraq templates [[Category:History and events templates

Public International Law of the Americas

The US is a signatory to the Charter of the Organization of American States, a multilateral treaty. You might enjoy reading Chapter IV, Fundamental Rights and Duties of States.

Here is an extract:

Article 21

The territory of a State is inviolable; it may not be the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever. No territorial acquisitions or special advantages obtained either by force or by other means of coercion shall be recognized.

harlan (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The members of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Assembly of States are working on a satisfactory definition for the crime of aggression. The ICC isn't part of the UN, so the member states can adopt their own definition. In the meantime, you can mention this sourced fact in a neutral narrative about the invasion of Iraq. The US had a binding obligation under a valid international treaty not to invade or occupy the territory of another state for any reason.

Under Article 13 of the UN Charter, the General Assembly is tasked with the progressive codification of international law. It adopted a "Definition of Aggression", which it annexed to UN GA Res. 3314 (XXIX) (1974). It said that the invasion or occupation of the territory of another state was an act of aggression. However article 2 of that annex contained a loophole. It implicitly required a Security Council determination that an act of aggression was serious in nature. Any of the permanent members could block a resolution and prevent the adoption of a determination. That was the definition the UN International Law Commission proposed in the draft statute it provided to the Rome Conference that established the ICC. The member states did not find that definition to be acceptable. harlan (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Harlan, much appreciated, does the jurisdiction of the OAS treaty extend beyond the Americas? Any idea of the current status of the ICC vis-à-vis a definition and whether a final adoption would have retrospective effect? (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The latest progress report from the ICC Assembly of States is here:

The Inter-American System is comprised of a number of treaties that were, or still are applicable to all of the American states in the conduct of their relations with the community of nations. The system was developed to help secure justice and international peace. Intervention by one State in the internal or external affairs of another State has always been condemned. The Inter-American Reciprocal Assistance and Solidarity (Act of Chapultepec); March 6, 1945 contains a brief overview and a recital of the key historical milestones in the development of the system. Unilateral responses to non-continental security threats were not permitted under the system. For example, the Declaration of Principles of Inter-American Solidarity and Cooperation; December 21, 1936 said that every act susceptible of disturbing the peace of America affects each and every nation, and justifies the initiation of the procedure of consultation provided for in the Convention for the Maintenance, Preservation and Reestablishment of Peace.

The UN Charter was modeled on the Inter-American system. It also required consultation and a determination by the Security Council before any military action against Iraq. The purpose of the United Nations is the prevention and removal of threats to peace and the suppression of acts of aggression. The Charter requires the members to refrain from the threat of, or use of force. According to communis opinio the obligations imposed by those provisions of the Charter have become part of customary international law and are binding on all States, whether they are members of the United Nations or not. see for example "The International Law Commission's Draft Articles on State Responsibility: Part 1, Articles 1-35", By United Nations International Law Commission, Compiled by Shabtai Rosenne, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, ISBN 0792311795, page 189. harlan (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

History of Iraq

Hello bro, Just want to get your attention about this interesting article History of Iraq. how come Sumer, Akkadian Empire, Babylonia, Mitanni, and Assyria have one line in this article while Achaemenid and Sassanid Empire have big sections? Mussav (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WhoIs Template on 94.192.38.247

I have, once again, readded the WhoIs template to that anon's talk page. Since you obviously are doing this constant removal to be disruptive or some strange case of WP:OWN, I have taken the matter to ANI. You may comment there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If I were you, I would be think carefully before harrassing me again, because that entire episode turned out in my full vindication, with the ban being lifted and several unreserved apologies forwarded for abusive behaviour. You on the other hand, were castigated by other editors about your actions. Izzedine (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I won't. You are disrupting a page and you think since you got some apologizes before you get a free pass to essentially vandalize a page now. Ain't happenin' Buckwheat. Stop now and I will mark the ANI post resolved. Continue and the consequences are yours to be had. Your choice. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)