Public Law 105-338 authorised for the drawdown of articles from the stocks of the U.S. Department of Defense, as subsequently allocated under the signature of President William Jefferson Clinton (16 January 1999), to the KDP and PUK, among other entities, this was wholy illegal.
The current Administration in Washington D.C. in concluding an MoU with a non-State Party as Masoud Barzani (KDP's leader) is likewise contrary to United States law, one cannot supply war matériel (or other U.S. goods) to non-State Parties, this being Private Law bills' subject matter, and, such bills are only valid within the U.S. dominion.
It is pointed out that U.S. civilian and armed forces presence in Iraq, and incursions into Iraqi airspace, and, evidently, U.S. approach to the Security Council in 2003, are without legal support.
Under what authority does the sovereign of a signatory State of GCIV have the right to abrogate his obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention?
See: Pub. L. 105-235
See: Reciprocal Warfare (footnote 1)
NB: I do not necessarily concur with the Security Council's 1993 adoption of the report of Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and the Commission of Experts which had been established under UNSC RES 780, one cannot on the backdrop of the unprecedented in scope diplomatically terms of UNSC RES 687, redefine the component parts of customary international law; this muddle attributed to the lack of comprehension among the Security Council of historical materialism.
The current Administration in Washington D.C. in concluding an MoU with a non-State Party as Masoud Barzani (KDP's leader) is likewise contrary to United States law, one cannot supply war matériel (or other U.S. goods) to non-State Parties, this being Private Law bills' subject matter, and, such bills are only valid within the U.S. dominion.
It is pointed out that U.S. civilian and armed forces presence in Iraq, and incursions into Iraqi airspace, and, evidently, U.S. approach to the Security Council in 2003, are without legal support.
Under what authority does the sovereign of a signatory State of GCIV have the right to abrogate his obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention?
See: Pub. L. 105-235
See: Reciprocal Warfare (footnote 1)
NB: I do not necessarily concur with the Security Council's 1993 adoption of the report of Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and the Commission of Experts which had been established under UNSC RES 780, one cannot on the backdrop of the unprecedented in scope diplomatically terms of UNSC RES 687, redefine the component parts of customary international law; this muddle attributed to the lack of comprehension among the Security Council of historical materialism.