15 January 2006

No Statute of Limitations

One of the interesting things that people tend to forget are some of the niceties that came from diplomacy in the times of the Great Powers during the late 19th and early 20th century. Many forms and means were devised to help these Powers avoid war, and, in the end, got them the first of two horrific World Wars. One of the better concepts that still lingers on is that of a Casus Belli, or actions that put one at risk for war as part of a schema known as Jus ad bellum. States knew and remained circumspect of such things and did their best to skirt them lest they invite a small war that would trigger off a larger war. In the end, this concept work contrarily as expected for the circumstances, triggering off something no one wanted but everyone prepared for, or so they thought.

But this concept, along with that of a 'Just War' still live on and have been batted about by all sides of the political spectrum, but no one really wants to address the messy details. So, lets get into some details! These are some of the things that can rightly be considered to be a Casus Belli.

1) Invasion - Invading another country's territory or sovereign lands. Usually through force of arms, but other things have been considered under this term. But, technically, it is by the military or designated forces of a sovereign power used against another sovereign power to invade territory and occupy it, even if only briefly. In modern times guerrilla fighters have caused many problems by using the pourousness of borders and ethnic affinities to cause problems between states at peace with each other to have heightened tensions. This can slide into a rootless form of warfare known as terrorism. While terrorists usually have a set credo or belief, they often do not belong to any state and are thus considered non-state actors, not existing under the flag of any lawful state. This can often degenerate down into the terrorist group being used as a proxy by state powers to do unlawful things. This is not to be confused with Proxy War, which was an outgrowth of the Cold War and involves states as actors representing Superpowers (or other governments in a more generalized way). Proxy War has definitive backers that are, themselves, unwilling to come to arms against each other directly. Proxy attacks using terrorism is Asymmetric Warfare, using non-state actors difficult to connect to a specific state for attacking another state, territory, ethnic group or political faction, or an independent non-state actor doing the same.

2) Territory - In the case of states this is considered to be both the areas in direct control of a sovereign power (ex. a homeland or set of distributed confederate states) or that come under indirect control such as a colony or vassal state. Note that territory need not be contiguous or geographically continuous. Territories that come under a power as a Protectorates, which are either minor states falling under the protection of a sovereign power or unincorporated territory being developed by a sovereign power. Attacks upon territories under a sovereign power are considered a Casus Belli.

3) Diplomatic Missions - These are registered representatives of a foreign government occupying a mission in a foreign country so as to represent their home sovereign power. Under International Law such missions are considered to have extraterritorial status. An Embassy housing a diplomatic mission in a foreign country is given space to rule as sovereign within the grounds of that Embassy. These are pre-arranged via diplomacy and agreed to through normal diplomatic means. Expelling a Diplomatic Mission and terminating the Embassy and giving the foreign power a set date to leave is known as cutting off diplomatic relations. Even during changes in government, the previous rules and regulations over that Diplomatic Mission remain until a new, lawful government changes them and gives official notice of the termination of that Diplomatic Mission.

Following me so far?

So, for those worrying about a Casus Belli it can be as simple as an invasion of Embassy grounds and occupation without a lawful government giving orders for the termination of that Diplomatic Mission. Doing so gives cause for 'Just War' under Jus ad bellum via a Casus Belli.

Still following?

Case in point: the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the occupation of the American Embassy and holding the diplomatic staff prisoner on those grounds. This can be considered an Invasion under the terminology of International Law. This Invasion is a Casus Belli, which allows the United States to respond in any manner it wants to at any time it wants to. Similarly the US may act against the Beirut Embassy Bombings of the American compound in 1983 and 1984. While official definitive evidence has yet to be presented, it is commonly thought and not repudiated by Hezbollah. Commonly Syria is thought to be supporting and funding Hezbollah to perform activities it does not want to be connected with directly. Hezbollah also espouses the expansion of the Iranian Revolution, because it was founded by Iran. So, if Hezbollah is found to be the group that carried out these attacks, there is a clear and definitive link via its founding to Iran, indicating that a Casus Belli has happened with Invasion of US Territory for the sole purpose of occupying space enough to detonate a bomb. If Syria is indicated to have any part in the arming, equipping, manning, supervision or providing cover for either bombing, a Casus Belli will also exist between Syria and the United States.

So to sum things up: Iran has given the United States definitively 3 Casus Belli, and Syria a possible 2.

As to the title of this post, there is *NO* statute of limitations on a Casus Belli under International Law.

The United States may respond as it sees fit whenever and wherever it prefers and under any lawful means of war.

Are we clear on that?

No comments: