Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
47. You're confusing the UN Refugee Convention with the UN Charter
Tue Apr 21, 2015, 02:02 PM
Apr 2015

If a Syrian makes it to France or its territory and seeks asylum, he should be accorded a status determination process consistent with the Convention. Many Convention signatories, such as France, also have an orderly Refugee Admission process that accepts applications from refugees outside of France. Signatories are also obligated to support refugees and displaced persons protected by UNHCR. That is the extent of France's obligation under the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees (1951) as modified by the 1967 Protocols.

That is different from the UN Charter and customary international law that make "aggressive war" a war crime.

If French military intelligence operators foment an armed uprising in Libya, which resulted in regime change and civil war, that is a violation of the prohibition against aggressive war in the UN Charter and customary international law unless France can show that has been authorized by the UN Security Council to do so. Both the US and France claim that the aerial bombardment they carried out against regime forces was consistent with UN authorizations. However, that claim does not apply to the covert destabilization that occurred and the arming of factions within the opposition. Organization of Libyan nationals to fight against the Syrian government is a further act of aggression which is not authorized by the UN. Acts of Aggression and Aggressive War amounting to Crimes Against Peace by states are defined as follows:

General Assembly Resolution 3314

On December 14, 1974, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 3314, which defined the crime of aggression. This definition is not binding as such under international law, though it may reflect customary international law.

This definition makes a distinction between aggression (which "gives rise to international responsibility&quot and war of aggression (which is "a crime against international peace&quot . Acts of aggression are defined as armed invasions or attacks, bombardments, blockades, armed violations of territory, permitting other states to use one's own territory to perpetrate acts of aggression and the employment of armed irregulars or mercenaries to carry out acts of aggression. A war of aggression is a series of acts committed with a sustained intent. The definition's distinction between an act of aggression and a war of aggression make it clear that not every act of aggression would constitute a crime against peace; only war of aggression does. States would nonetheless be held responsible for acts of aggression.

If, as a result of conditions of civil conflict created, persecuted groups and individuals flee abroad from Libya and Syria in boats, these persons should be treated as Convention Refugees to which any signatory country must extend an asylum process upon arrival and cannot turn them around and send them back to the country of persecution.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It's Europe's fault that the smugglers used a shitty boat? DetlefK Apr 2015 #1
Check out Europe's role in the wars in the ME and North Africa malaise Apr 2015 #8
If not America and Europe, who are the shining beacons of human rights and dignity? DetlefK Apr 2015 #10
There are no shining beacons of human rights and dignity malaise Apr 2015 #19
You are not very good at making your argument. DetlefK Apr 2015 #22
Because America and Europe have imposed their preferred dictators in their countries malaise Apr 2015 #27
Now you are trying to have it both ways. DetlefK Apr 2015 #30
No you adress Amerca's and Europe's current roles malaise Apr 2015 #31
Just 4 things: DetlefK Apr 2015 #34
Post removed Post removed Apr 2015 #36
And we all know the Brits are famous for their humor. DeSwiss Apr 2015 #43
Your kind? Looks to me that you are the one making generalizations and deflecting from suffragette Apr 2015 #49
Excellent post sis malaise Apr 2015 #52
Thanks sis suffragette Apr 2015 #58
Eurocentrism is uncurable. DeSwiss Apr 2015 #44
We did get involved in Iran 50 years ago treestar Apr 2015 #41
So Europe and America (I assume you mean North America, or just the United States of America?) snooper2 Apr 2015 #50
"what Europe did to Africa to enrich one race of folks was the worst genocide in history" EX500rider Apr 2015 #45
Australia has had a policy for many years of denying entry to asylum seekers by the boatload underahedgerow Apr 2015 #2
So, the US, the EU, and NATO go in and wreck their country... MattSh Apr 2015 #4
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! malaise Apr 2015 #32
Which countries are wrecked? treestar Apr 2015 #42
Russia has had a hand in Syria's civil war, too Blue_Tires Apr 2015 #48
Britian stole Australia from the indigenous people malaise Apr 2015 #20
This is just the leading edge of the coming tsunami of climate/economic refugees GliderGuider Apr 2015 #3
The UN thinks Africa's population will double by 2050 AngryAmish Apr 2015 #12
+100 - Questions that everyone needs to be asking themselves. nt GliderGuider Apr 2015 #17
Interesting thread going on right now at city data forum from european's perspective E-Z-B Apr 2015 #5
Full of racists, like most city data forums are. JaneyVee Apr 2015 #16
It's echoing this entire thread on DU. Are you calling everyone here racists, too? E-Z-B Apr 2015 #18
Moral High Ground? SCVDem Apr 2015 #6
"Europe" "let" ??? treestar Apr 2015 #7
Under UN Refugee Treaty, they have all vowed not to "refoule" (return) people fleeing persecution leveymg Apr 2015 #11
I think under the UN plan the cases start treestar Apr 2015 #13
No. Under the UN Refugee treaty, asylum is supposed to be granted by receiving countries on arrival. leveymg Apr 2015 #21
That doesn't address the charge that Europe were somehow responsible for the deaths. DetlefK Apr 2015 #24
There are three aspects to Europe's responsibility for these refugees. leveymg Apr 2015 #26
Europe didn't block access to asylum treestar Apr 2015 #35
The images we saw yesterday were from a sinking near the coast, within territorial waters leveymg Apr 2015 #38
Again where does the UN treaty say anything about all that? treestar Apr 2015 #40
You're confusing the UN Refugee Convention with the UN Charter leveymg Apr 2015 #47
So has the UN determined that the US or France treestar Apr 2015 #54
Didn't in the case of Iraq, either. leveymg Apr 2015 #55
Yeah, this is a bit over the top for me -- Europe can hardly accept huge boatloads Nay Apr 2015 #9
And these aren't even the poorest people TexasMommaWithAHat Apr 2015 #14
When does Italy become responsible for them? 1939 Apr 2015 #15
When they enter territorial waters or when they make a refugee claim and have ties to Italy. leveymg Apr 2015 #23
I believe it's when they set foot on the ground, literally. And the bigger question is Why should underahedgerow Apr 2015 #25
Entering territorial waters is the same as setting foot across a land border, as far as UNHCR leveymg Apr 2015 #28
We've been letting Haitians drown on their way here cwydro Apr 2015 #29
Because the migrants are Black Africans 951-Riverside Apr 2015 #33
Many are Arabs.i think the current rise is mostly because JI7 Apr 2015 #57
I feel for Europe. moondust Apr 2015 #37
There was a time...... DeSwiss Apr 2015 #39
Very well said malaise Apr 2015 #46
Yep. This message will be ignored by racists, bigots, and other undesirables, closeupready Apr 2015 #56
Europe lets people drown... Spider Jerusalem Apr 2015 #51
I get it JustAnotherGen Apr 2015 #53
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why Europe Lets People Dr...»Reply #47