‘NZ backs action against Gaddafi’s forces – Key’ – on what (International) LAWFUL basis?

www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-backs-action-against-gaddafis-forces-key-nn-88671#comment-76092

(My comment at end of post).

NZ backs action against Gaddafi’s forces – Key

New Zealand supports the military action the United States and European nations are taking against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s forces, Prime Minister John Key said.

“It supports the UN Security Council resolution demanding the reduction and elimination of violence by the Libyan government against the people of Libya, and also the no-fly zone across Libya because, of course, Gaddafi is using his air space to attack his own people,” Mr Key said on TV One’s Q&A programme on Sunday morning.

He was speaking as cruise missiles and airstrikes were launched against Libya’s air defence positions, clearing the way for air patrols to enforce the no-fly zone.

Mr Key was asked whether New Zealand had moved to impose financial sanctions on Libya, as several other countries had done.

“Not that I’m aware of,” Mr Key said.

“We continue to monitor that situation and look and see whether that’s a requirement…we are part of the international regime when it comes to sanctions, and those that come out of the United Nations, we follow.”

Mr Key was also asked about the agreement the Government signed with Libya last year allowing students to come here to study.

About 300 a year are expected to take it up, earning New Zealand about $30 million.

“It’s the sort of thing we’ll have to take a close look at,” Mr Key said.

“But the people of Libya, I suspect, want their own freedom and their own future and their own opportunities — and the way to deliver that is through education.

“(We) shouldn’t necessarily cut that capacity simply because we don’t agree with the actions of Colonel Gaddafi.”

Mr Key said the Middle East was undergoing substantial change driven by young people.

“So we need to make sure that if we do make any moves that we’re taking appropriate action,” he said.

Comments and questions

3

John will simply do what the US says he should.

Anonymous | Monday, March 21, 2011 – 9:46am

• reply

In response to Anonymous | Monday, March 21, 2011 – 9:46am

Actually isn’t it your beloved Helen Clark’s organisation, the UN that wanted help?

FedUp | Monday, March 21, 2011 – 10:23am

• reply

Suggest you read the UN Security Council resolution for yourselves, and find the exact section which endorses enforcement of an immediate ‘ceasefire’ with bombs and missiles, in order to ‘protect’ Libyan civilians?

(Can’t find that bit myself – and I’ve looked).

www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

Upon what lawful basis, under International Human Rights Law, is NZ Prime Minister John Key relying, when making this statement?

“It supports the UN Security Council resolution demanding the reduction and elimination of violence by the Libyan government against the people of Libya, and also the no-fly zone across Libya because, of course, Gaddafi is using his air space to attack his own people,” Mr Key said on TV One’s Q&A programme on Sunday morning.John Key.

Which particular section of the above-mentioned UN Security Council resolution, specifically exempts the US-led ‘Coalition’s bombs and missiles from the ‘no-fly’ zone?

Which part of International Law supports the attack on Libya by the US-led ‘Coalition’
forces, none of which are being attacked by Libya?

errrr…….. this attack on Libya (killing civilians in order to ‘protect them) couldn’t possibly have anything to do with Libya’s nationalised oil supplies – could it?

Iraq – all over again????

Penny Bright
Effective Public Watchdog
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

Penny Bright | Monday, March 21, 2011 – 11:55am

‘Financial weapons of mass destruction still primed to detonate’ – Professor Prem Sikka UK

21 March 2011

www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2011/03/11437/

Financial weapons of mass destruction still primed to detonate

The current uncorrected political course means another banking crisis is inevitable, cautions Prem Sikka

by Prem Sikka

Friday, March 18th, 2011

Are you ready for the next financial crisis? With interlocking banks and corporations, it will be more severe than anything that we are experiencing now. The Government’s plan to replace the Financial Services Authority with the Prudential Regulation Authority is akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The PRA is to be guided by a new Financial Policy Committee. Its membership includes Lord Turner and Hector Sants, respectively chairman and chief executive of the FSA, who presided over current failures; Bank of England governor Mervyn King; former Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs executive Michael Cohrs; and Sir Richard Lambert, a former chief of the Confederation of British Industry. The current mess is the outcome of the neo-liberal world view embedded in regulatory towers and the same is set to continue. This will be of no comfort to the taxpayers who are still providing £512 billion to support banks.

The Treasury’s consultation paper does not contain any proposals to deal with the underlying causes of the banking crisis. These relate to incessant demand for higher profits, executive rewards and speculative activity. Stock markets expect corporations to produce ever-rising profits. Markets don’t care if that is delivered by squeezing wages or employee pension rights, or through tax dodging. As directors’ remuneration is linked to profits, they have  incentives to charge exorbitant interest rates, pay measly rates on savings, hide liabilities, create toxic debts and take excessive risks. There are no proposals to check the race for higher corporate profits and executive remuneration. Separating the investment and retail arms of banks might help  in managing the risks to the economy. So might higher taxes on executive bonuses. But even these reforms would not change the practices which have plunged economies into crisis.

Gambling, or placing bets on the movement of exchange rates, interest rates, price of wheat, oil, gold, commodities and even rates of death, is ingrained in the world of finance. The trade in derivatives has been described by Warren Buffett, the billionaire American investor, as “financial weapons of mass destruction”. Northern Rock, HBOS, Barclays, HSBC, Goldman Sachs and all other banks trade in derivatives. Derivatives are not dissimilar to placing a bet on a horse, where the outcome could be anything from loss of the wager to a large win.

The logic of derivatives is driven by neo-liberal economic theories embedded in complex mathematical models designed to enable individual traders to hedge their risks. These models contain no space for consideration of social welfare, ethics, or economic collapse caused by reckless gambling. The mathematical techniques were developed by business schools in the United States with  funding from corporate sponsors and cannot be refined to consider social consequences. That would require a complete reinvention of the theories of finance and that is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.

The destructive capacity of derivatives and related mathematical models is well documented. In the US, Myron S Scholes and Robert C Merton are credited with developing models for trading in derivatives which offered the possibilities of comparatively low-risk trading through a calculated use of borrowing, lending and short selling. In 1997, the two professors shared the Nobel Prize in Economics “for a new method to determine the value of derivatives”. They made huge profits  through Long-Term Capital Management, a hedge fund. But just seven months after receiving their Nobel Prize, their models were in trouble. At one stage, LTCM had capital of only $4.72 billion, but borrowed $124.5 billion and thus tied numerous other banks to its risky positions. Inevitably, in 1997-98, LTCM misjudged the severity of the East Asian and Russian financial crisis and found itself with $400 million of capital, $100 billion of debts, $4.5 billion of losses and derivatives with a face value of $1 trillion. Rather than letting LTCM swing for its follies, the US government feared the knock-on effects and bailed it out with the help of a consortium of banks.

The destructive practices have continued unabated. Bear Stearns collapsed in 2008. For nearly six years before its demise, almost all of its pre-tax profits came from speculative activities. The bank had shareholder funds of only $11.8 billion, but borrowing of $384 billion. Its derivatives had a face value of $13.4 trillion, not much less than the entire gross domestic product of the US. At Lehman Brothers, speculative activity generated around 80 per cent of pre-tax profits in 2006, up from 32 per cent in 1997. For every $1 of its capital, it borrowed $30.7 to feed its gambling habit. In September 2008, when Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, it had nearly 900,000 derivative contracts with a face value of around $738 billion entangling numerous other entities. At the end of 2007, Northern Rock had derivatives with a face value of £125 billion and was soon bailed out by the British taxpayer.

The mathematical models, frequently written into computer software, may enable individual traders to hedge risks, but they also increase the destructive risk to the economy. In December 2007, when the banking crisis hit the headlines, the face value of derivatives was around $1,148 trillion. Just five banks had derivatives with a face value of some $170 trillion. JP Morgan had $2.251 trillion of assets and $91.339 trillion face value of derivatives. Citibank had $2.050 trillion of assets and $38.186 trillion of derivatives, and Barclays Bank derivatives had a face value of nearly £29 trillion. In March 2010, the face value of all derivatives stood at $1,048 trillion. Even if the actual economic exposure was only 5 per cent, the next derivatives crisis would cause massive economic destruction to the global GDP of around $65 trillion. Yet no one is asking bankers to pay 100 per cent of the bets up front and thus limit the number of gambles that they can make, or place any upper limits on their gambles.

Rather than wringing their hands, policymakers should learn and adapt some lessons from other walks of life . In the world of medicine, for instance, manufacturers cannot launch products without prior testing and specific approval from regulators. Manufacturers can be held liable for the negative effects and forced to withdraw the products. They are rarely bailed out after failures.

The destructive practices of the finance industry have not been adequately scrutinised by the Independent Banking Commission or parliamentary hearings. The finance industry remains free to indulge in unlimited gambling and is not held liable for the resulting social devastation. The taxpayer-funded bailouts hardly provide any incentives for curbing the destructive practices. Even if the retail and investment banking is separated, the bankers will still be gambling with other people’s savings and pensions, and thus fritter away other people’s wealth. If the gambles are successful, they will walk away with large bonuses. If they fail, the taxpayer will pick up the tab.

With rampant stock markets, an unchecked appetite for executive bonuses, reckless gambling and regulatory deference to big corporations, the next financial crisis is inevitable. The chances of developing socially responsible risk management theories and mathematical models in the foreseeable future are remote, especially as universities are hungry for corporate patronage. The only alternatives is meaningful, full-time supervision of the finance industry. Banks should not be allowed to trade in untested products, nor permitted to create systemic risks through unconstrained speculative activity. The impulse for gambling should be checked by ensuring that depositors, borrowers and employees appoint directors and impose their risk averseness on them.

Financial enterprises should be subjected to the freedom of information laws so that we can demand to see the destructive transactions and contracts and thus check the selfish impulses of executives. All this is urgently needed, but goes against the grain of the neo-liberal ideology. Successive governments have been only too keen to appease the finance industry and have done little to check its excesses. They have thus sown the seeds of the next financial crisis.

Prem Sikka is professor of accounting at the University of Essex

Fuzzy Privatization Math (Claims that New Jersey private contractors do a better job than public employees – just ‘made up’)

Fuzzy Privatization Math

Monday 14 March 2011

by: Ellen Dannin  |  Employment Policy Research Network | Op-Ed

(Photo: Jorge Franganillo)

On May 31, 2010, Governor Chris Christie’s New Jersey Privatization Task Force reported that more than $210 million would be saved by privatizing work that had traditionally been performed by government workers. The report even set out specific figures for some of the cost savings it identified, while others said savings were “TBD” – “To Be Decided”.

Who crunched the numbers to show that private contractors would do a better job or at least the same job for less money than public employees? The Privatization Task Force Report says that no one did. On page 14 the report says it did no analysis “due not only to the fact that the actual cost of a privatized alternative will often not be known until the end of a full fledged competitive bidding process, but also because New Jersey state government agencies have difficulty calculating with precision the full cost of functions currently performed at the state level.” So, the sunny claims of big savings for the people of New Jersey are a guestimate, at best. and “To Be Decided” is the most accurate statement in the report.

Some people take it on faith that the private sector always does a better job for less money than government. But the most of us deciding how to provide public service is not a matter of ideology, not a team sport. We just want to solve our federal, state, and local budget problems and provide good quality services. So, for most of us, it will come as a surprise that in many cases no effort is made to show whether a private company can do government work as well as public employees.

Privatizers have often advocated using the “Yellow Pages” test – if work the government does can be found in the Yellow Pages, they claim it can be privatized. But it’s not that simple.

Just because a government and private service sound similar does not mean they are the same. Take elementary and secondary education. There are private and public schools, so private school tuition could be compared to per student costs at public schools. But the services provided by public and private schools are not the same, and those differences allow private schools to provide less expensive education, not that they all do.

The most important difference is that private schools can cherry pick, because they can chose which students to accept or reject. But, by law, public schools must accept and educate all children. Educating the next generation is of critical importance to a democracy, and achieving that goal is imposed on public – but not private – schools. That includes children whose education is very expensive, including children with disabilities and other serious problems.

If there were no public schools to ensure that all children are provided an education, we all would be the poorer for it. And when children attend private schools, public schools have less money to meet their obligations to educate all children.

So even though the yellow pages test sounds reasonable at first glance, it fails to take into account important differences between public and private services.

Fight the lies and misinformation; support truth! Please make a tax-deductible donation to Truthout today and keep real independent journalism strong.

The truth is that in all too many cases work is privatized without any comparison at all of the cost and nature of public versus private work. And, according to studies by the Government Accountability Office and others, even when there is a cost comparison, major costs that the public bears are not taken into account. One study found that costs not included were costs of hiring consultants to conduct the cost comparisons, costs for unemployment benefits when employees are replaced by contractor employees and vice versa when work is contracted back in, declines in productivity associated with the process of deciding whether to contract out work, declines in productivity when new employees are learning how to provide services and operate in a new system, the loss of institutional memory, and accountability oversight to ensure that the contractor is not shirking, to name just a few.

Join the movement for truth – support brave, independent reporting today by making a contribution to Truthout.

Before rushing to privatize, we need to remember what math teachers tell their students, “Show your work.”

For example, we need know: Will the work cost less because it is done more efficiently, or because wages are lowered and benefits are eliminated? Paying workers less does not provide better quality. It just impoverishes workers. And having workers unable to get health care for themselves and their families means coming to work too sick to do a good job and being worried sick about medical care for their families. It also means pushing costs off on hospitals, doctors, charities, and, ultimately, on the government and taxpayers.

Although accountability ensures that work is done properly, some have claimed that private sector competition provides all the accountability that is needed. However, most services came to be provided by the government because there was no competition. Lack of accountability led to overcharging, poor or no service, and corruption in the past, and there is no reason to think that we will not have the same problems again.

The only way to protect the public from bad privatization deals is to demand that the private contractor explains in detail and clearly how what it will do is more efficient, how its operations affect costs, and why states and cities can’t use the same methods.

In order to avoid overlooking costs and problems, decision makers must do a careful “walk through” of all the details as to how a service is provided. That walk through must identify costs, especially costs that are often overlooked and which fall on the public. For example, is the cost of unemployment insurance included for any workers who will lose their jobs? Do the costs include taxes lost from the newly unemployed or from the lower paid workers who are replacing them? Are the costs of ensuring accountability and oversight included? Is the quality of services the same or better, or will they be degraded, including by making access more difficult?

The public has a lot to lose when public services are improperly privatized. Unless a bona fide comparison of costs and benefits is performed, all we will get is fuzzy math and being stuck with the bill for poor quality service.

UN security council resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya – full text – plus relevant UN International Law.

20 March 2011

How does bombing Libya = supporting a ‘ceasefire’ and ‘ceasing hostilities’?

How do missile attacks from foreign countries (which are not under attack from Libya),  protect Libyan civilians?

How is the International ‘Rule of Law’ being applied in Libya?

Since when did this ‘summit’ of ‘world leaders’ usurp the UN Security Council?

www.navytimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-world-leaders-gather-in-critical-libya-talks-031911/

Which part of the UN Security Council  endorsed ‘air strikes’ against Libya?

www.navytimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-world-leaders-launch-military-action-in-libya-031911/

Where are missiles exempted from the UN Security Council  ‘no fly zone’?

______________________________________________________________________________________

UN security council resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya – full text

Read the full text of the resolution passed at UN headquarters in favour of a no-fly zone and air strikes against Muammar Gaddafi

• guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 March 2011 23.34 GMT
• Article history
UN security council vote for a no-fly zone over Libya. Photograph: Stan Honda/AFP/Getty Images 

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolution 1970 (2011) of 26 February 2011,

Deploring the failure of the Libyan authorities to comply with resolution 1970 (2011),

Expressing grave concern at the deteriorating situation, the escalation of violence, and the heavy civilian casualties,

Reiterating the responsibility of the Libyan authorities to protect the Libyan population and reaffirming that parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians,

Condemning the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions,

Further condemning acts of violence and intimidation committed by the Libyan authorities against journalists, media professionals and associated personnel and urging these authorities to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law as outlined in resolution 1738 (2006),

Considering that the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity,

Recalling paragraph 26 of resolution 1970 (2011) in which the Council expressed its readiness to consider taking additional appropriate measures, as necessary, to facilitate and support the return of humanitarian agencies and make available humanitarian and related assistance in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Expressing its determination to ensure the protection of civilians and civilian populated areas and the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance and the safety of humanitarian personnel,

Recalling the condemnation by the League of Arab States, the African Union, and the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference of the serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that have been and are being committed in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Taking note of the final communiqué of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference of 8 March 2011, and the communiqué of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union of 10 March 2011 which established an ad hoc High Level Committee on Libya,

Taking note also of the decision of the Council of the League of Arab States of 12 March 2011 to call for the imposition of a no-fly zone on Libyan military aviation, and to establish safe areas in places exposed to shelling as a precautionary measure that allows the protection of the Libyan people and foreign nationals residing in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Taking note further of the Secretary-General’s call on 16 March 2011 for an immediate cease-fire,

Recalling its decision to refer the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and stressing that those responsible for or complicit in attacks targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks, must be held to account,

Reiterating its concern at the plight of refugees and foreign workers forced to flee the violence in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, welcoming the response of neighbouring States, in particular Tunisia and Egypt, to address the needs of those refugees and foreign workers, and calling on the international community to support those efforts,

Deploring the continuing use of mercenaries by the Libyan authorities,

Considering that the establishment of a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya constitutes an important element for the protection of civilians as well as the safety of the delivery of humanitarian assistance and a decisive step for the cessation of hostilities in Libya,

Expressing concern also for the safety of foreign nationals and their rights in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Welcoming the appointment by the Secretary General of his Special Envoy to Libya, Mr Abdel-Elah Mohamed Al-Khatib and supporting his efforts to find a sustainable and peaceful solution to the crisis in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Determining that the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Demands the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;

2. Stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people and notes the decisions of the Secretary-General to send his Special Envoy to Libya and of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union to send its ad hoc High Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution;

3. Demands that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law and take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs, and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance;

Protection of civilians

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

5. Recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other Member States in the implementation of paragraph 4;

No fly zone

6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;

7. Decides further that the ban imposed by paragraph 6 shall not apply to flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, nor shall it apply to flights authorised by paragraphs 4 or 8, nor other flights which are deemed necessary by States acting under the authorisation conferred in paragraph 8 to be for the benefit of the Libyan people, and that these flights shall be coordinated with any mechanism established under paragraph 8;

8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,

9. Calls upon all Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to provide assistance, including any necessary over-flight approvals, for the purposes of implementing paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above;

10. Requests the Member States concerned to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General on the measures they are taking to implement paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above, including practical measures for the monitoring and approval of authorised humanitarian or evacuation flights;

11. Decides that the Member States concerned shall inform the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States immediately of measures taken in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above, including to supply a concept of operations;

12. Requests the Secretary-General to inform the Council immediately of any actions taken by the Member States concerned in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above and to report to the Council within 7 days and every month thereafter on the implementation of this resolution, including information on any violations of the flight ban imposed by paragraph 6 above;

Enforcement of the arms embargo

13. Decides that paragraph 11 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall be replaced by the following paragraph : “Calls upon all Member States, in particular States of the region, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 or 10 of resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, calls upon all flag States of such vessels and aircraft to cooperate with such inspections and authorises Member States to use all measures commensurate to the specific circumstances to carry out such inspections”;

14. Requests Member States which are taking action under paragraph 13 above on the high seas to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General and further requests the States concerned to inform the Secretary-General and the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 24 of resolution 1970 (2011) (“the Committee”) immediately of measures taken in the exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 13 above;

15. Requires any Member State whether acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, when it undertakes an inspection pursuant to paragraph 13 above, to submit promptly an initial written report to the Committee containing, in particular, explanation of the grounds for the inspection, the results of such inspection, and whether or not cooperation was provided, and, if prohibited items for transfer are found, further requires such Member States to submit to the Committee, at a later stage, a subsequent written report containing relevant details on the inspection, seizure, and disposal, and relevant details of the transfer, including a description of the items, their origin and intended destination, if this information is not in the initial report;

16. Deplores the continuing flows of mercenaries into the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and calls upon all Member States to comply strictly with their obligations under paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011) to prevent the provision of armed mercenary personnel to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;

Ban on flights

17. Decides that all States shall deny permission to any aircraft registered in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or owned or operated by Libyan nationals or companies to take off from, land in or overfly their territory unless the particular flight has been approved in advance by the Committee, or in the case of an emergency landing;

18. Decides that all States shall deny permission to any aircraft to take off from, land in or overfly their territory, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the aircraft contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, except in the case of an emergency landing;

Asset freeze

19. Decides that the asset freeze imposed by paragraph 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall apply to all funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are on their territories, which are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Libyan authorities, as designated by the Committee, or by individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them, as designated by the Committee, and decides further that all States shall ensure that any funds, financial assets or economic resources are prevented from being made available by their nationals or by any individuals or entities within their territories, to or for the benefit of the Libyan authorities, as designated by the Committee, or individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or entities owned or controlled by them, as designated by the Committee, and directs the Committee to designate such Libyan authorities, individuals or entities within 30 days of the date of the adoption of this resolution and as appropriate thereafter;

20. Affirms its determination to ensure that assets frozen pursuant to paragraph 17 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall, at a later stage, as soon as possible be made available to and for the benefit of the people of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;

21. Decides that all States shall require their nationals, persons subject to their jurisdiction and firms incorporated in their territory or subject to their jurisdiction to exercise vigilance when doing business with entities incorporated in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or subject to its jurisdiction, and any individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, and entities owned or controlled by them, if the States have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that such business could contribute to violence and use of force against civilians;

Designations

22. Decides that the individuals listed in Annex I shall be subject to the travel restrictions imposed in paragraphs 15 and 16 of resolution 1970 (2011), and decides further that the individuals and entities listed in Annex II shall be subject to the asset freeze imposed in paragraphs 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011);

23. Decides that the measures specified in paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall apply also to individuals and entities determined by the Council or the Committee to have violated the provisions of resolution 1970 (2011), particularly paragraphs 9 and 10 thereof, or to have assisted others in doing so;

Panel of experts

24. Requests the Secretary-General to create for an initial period of one year, in consultation with the Committee, a group of up to eight experts (“Panel of Experts”), under the direction of the Committee to carry out the following tasks:

(a) Assist the Committee in carrying out its mandate as specified in paragraph 24 of resolution 1970 (2011) and this resolution;

(b) Gather, examine and analyse information from States, relevant United Nations bodies, regional organisations and other interested parties regarding the implementation of the measures decided in resolution 1970 (2011) and this resolution, in particular incidents of non-compliance;

(c) Make recommendations on actions the Council, or the Committee or State, may consider to improve implementation of the relevant measures;

(d) Provide to the Council an interim report on its work no later than 90 days after the Panel’s appointment, and a final report to the Council no later than 30 days prior to the termination of its mandate with its findings and recommendations;

25. Urges all States, relevant United Nations bodies and other interested parties, to cooperate fully with the Committee and the Panel of Experts, in particular by supplying any information at their disposal on the implementation of the measures decided in resolution 1970 (2011) and this resolution, in particular incidents of non-compliance;

26. Decides that the mandate of the Committee as set out in paragraph 24 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall also apply to the measures decided in this resolution;

27. Decides that all States, including the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, shall take the necessary measures to ensure that no claim shall lie at the instance of the Libyan authorities, or of any person or body in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, or of any person claiming through or for the benefit of any such person or body, in connection with any contract or other transaction where its performance was affected by reason of the measures taken by the Security Council in resolution 1970 (2011), this resolution and related resolutions;

28. Reaffirms its intention to keep the actions of the Libyan authorities under continuous review and underlines its readiness to review at any time the measures imposed by this resolution and resolution 1970 (2011), including by strengthening, suspending or lifting those measures, as appropriate, based on compliance by the Libyan authorities with this resolution and resolution 1970 (2011).

29. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

_______________________________________________________________________________

deoxy.org/wc/wc-un.htm#a2

Some relevant selections of

The Charter of The United Nations

WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm With in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom….

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members….
2. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
3. 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.

Chapter Vl: Pacific Settlement of Disputes

Article 33

1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their disputes by such means.

• The entire UN Charter

---

Index
WWW URL: http://deoxy.org/wc-un.htm
The Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal

_______________________________________________________________________

Principles of the
Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950

No. 82

Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal. Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950.

Introductory note: Under General Assembly Resolution 177 (II), paragraph (a), the International Law Commission was directed to “formulate the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal.” In the course of the consideration of this subject, the question arose as to whether or not the Commission should ascertain to what extent the principles contained in the Charter and judgment constituted principles of international law. The conclusion was that since the Nuremberg Principles had been affirmed by the General Assembly, the task entrusted to the Commission was not to express any appreciation of these principles as principles of international law but merely to formulate them. The text below was adopted by the Commission at its second session. The Report of the Commission also contains commentaries on the principles (see Yearbook of the Intemational Law Commission, 1950, Vol. II, pp. 374-378). Authentic text: English Text published in Report of the International Law Commission Covering its Second Session, 5 June-29 Duly 1950, Document A/1316, pp. 11-14.

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

Principle II

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle V

Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

Principle Vl

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:

1. Crimes against peace:
   1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
   2. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
2. War crimes:
   Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
3. Crimes against humanity:
   Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.

---

Index
WWW URL: http://deoxy.org/wc-nurem.htm
The Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal