World News 世界新聞 | | Forum 論壇 | | UK News 英國新聞 | | USA News 美國新聞 | | Global News 環球財經 | | Political News 政治新聞 | | Sci-Tech News 科技新聞 | | War & Terrorism News 戰爭與恐怖主義的新聞 | | Sports News 體育新聞 | | Multimedia 多媒體 | | Set Homepage 設為首頁 | |
| |
  | Translate: 翻譯：               Lord Bingham says Iraq invasion was a violation of international law賓厄姆勳爵說，入侵伊拉克是違反國際法的行為 Friday, November 28th, 2008 週五， 08年十一月28日
By通過 Robert Stevens羅伯特史蒂文斯 | Lord Bingham used the occasion of his first major speech since his retirement as a senior law lord to describe the 2003 invasion of Iraq as “serious violation of international law”. |賓厄姆勳爵利用這個機會，他第一次重要講話，因為他作為一個退休的高級法律老爺來形容2003年入侵伊拉克是“嚴重違反了國際法” 。 Bingham, a former Lord Chief Justice, gave the annual Grotius Lecture at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law on November 17.賓厄姆，前首席大法官，使年度格羅提斯講座在英國國際問題研究所和比較法在11月17日。 His speech was a devastating judicial refutation of the lies concocted by the British government and its legal advisors in order to justify the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.他的講話是一個毀滅性的司法駁的謊言炮製由英國政府和它的法律顧問，以證明非法入侵一個主權國家。 His legal stance directly contradicts that of the attorney general at the time, Lord Goldsmith, and Jack Straw, now Justice Secretary and then Foreign Secretary.他的法律的立場直接違背的總檢察長時，戈德史密斯勳爵，並斯特勞，現在司法部長和外交大臣。 Bingham has been Britain’s most authoritative legal figure over the past 15 years.賓厄姆一直英國最權威的法律數字在過去15年裡。 Even as he stated his disagreement with Bingham’s speech, Straw felt forced to acknowledge that he was the “finest jurist of his generation”.即使他說，他不同意賓厄姆的講話，斯特勞認為不得不承認，他是“優秀的法學家，他的一代” 。 Bingham also condemned some of the atrocities that have been carried out by the United States and British occupying powers in Iraq.賓厄姆還譴責了一些暴行，已進行了由美國和英國佔領伊拉克的權力。 He said the British occupation had been, “sullied by a number of incidents, most notably the shameful beating to death of Mr. Baha Mousa [a hotel receptionist]”.他說，英國佔領了， “玷污了一些事件中，最引人注目的是可恥的毆打致死的巴哈穆薩先生[一家酒店的接待員] ” 。 He added that whereas he felt that such crimes were not a result of deliberate British government policy, “This contrasts with the unilateral decisions of the US government that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the detention conditions in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or to trial of Al-Qaeda or Taliban prisoners by military commissions, that Al-Qaeda suspects should be denied the rights of both prisoners of war and criminal suspects and that torture should be redefined, contrary to the Torture Convention and the consensus of international opinion, to connote pain, where physical, ‘of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure’.”他補充說，而他認為，這些罪行並未因故意英國政府政策“ ，與此相反，單方面決定的，美國政府認為日內瓦公約並不適用於拘留條件在古巴關塔那摩灣，或審判基地組織或塔利班囚犯的軍事委員會，該基地組織嫌疑人都不應被剝奪的權利，雙方戰俘和犯罪嫌疑人，並酷刑應重新界定，這違背了禁止酷刑公約和國際協商一致意見，將意味著疼痛，在物理， '的強度類似於那些伴隨著嚴重的人身傷害，如死亡或器官功能衰竭。 “ “Particularly disturbing to proponents of the rule of law is the cynical lack of concern for international legality among some top officials in the Bush administration”. “特別令人不安的主張的法治是玩世不恭的缺乏關注的國際合法性的一些高級官員在布什政府” 。 Bingham stated that, in his opinion, the invasion of Iraq was carried out in violation of international law established following the end of the Second World War and the downfall of the Nazi regime in Nazi Germany.賓指出，在他看來，入侵伊拉克是進行違反國際法的行為成立後，結束第二次世界大戰和衰敗的納粹政權在納粹德國。 Bingham said, “If I am right that the invasion of Iraq by the US, the UK, and some other states was unauthorised by the [United Nations] Security Council there was, of course, a serious violation of international law and the rule of law.賓厄姆說： “如果我的權利，入侵伊拉克，美國，英國和其他一些國家是由未經批准[聯合國]安全理事會有，當然，嚴重違反了國際法和國際規則的法。 “For the effect of acting unilaterally was to undermine the foundation on which the post-1945 consensus had been constructed: the prohibition of force (save in self-defence, or perhaps, to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe) unless formally authorised by the nations of the world empowered to make collective decisions in the Security Council.” “對於影響的單方面行動是為了破壞基礎上， 1945年後的共識已經建造：禁止武力（除了自衛，或者，以避免迫在眉睫的人道主義災難） ，除非正式授權的國家世界有權作出集體決定在安全理事會。 “ He continued, “The current ministerial code, binding on British ministers, requires them as an overarching duty to ‘comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations’.”他繼續說， “目前的部長級代碼，具有約束力的英國部長，要求他們作為首要職責，遵守法律，包括國際法和條約義務。 ” Commenting on this “serious violation of international law”, he said, “The moment that a state treats the rules of international law as binding on others but not on itself, the compact on which the law rests is broken”.在評論這一“嚴重違反國際法的行為” ，他說： “時刻，一個國家對待國際法的規則為約束他人，但不能本身，契約，法律在於被打破。 ” Bingham cited a comment made by a leading academic lawyer, Professor Vaughan Lowe QC, in relation to the consequences of this tearing up of established international law.賓厄姆列舉了所提出的意見主要學術律師，教授漢羅威質量，有關的後果，這撕毀公認的國際法。 “It is, as has been said, ‘the difference between the role of world policeman and world vigilante’.” “這是，作為一直說， '之間的差別的作用世界警察和世界民' 。 ” In his remarks, Bingham gave a careful rebuttal of the legal arguments made by Lord Goldsmith immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq.在他的講話，賓厄姆了認真辯駁的法律觀點提出了戈德史密斯勳爵前夕入侵伊拉克。 He described Goldsmith’s arguments as “flawed in two fundamental respects”.他說，史密斯的論點是“有缺陷的兩個基本方面。 ” Bingham quoted from the conclusion to Lord Goldsmith’s parliamentary written answer on March 17, 2003.賓厄姆引用的結論戈德史密斯勳爵的書面答复議會於3月17日， 2003年。 The extract Bingham read from Goldsmith’s answer states:提取賓厄姆讀戈德史密斯的回答說： “Resolution 1441 would, in terms, have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. “ 1441號決議，將在條件，提供了一個進一步安理會決定制裁所需的武力，如果已經打算。 Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq’s failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.”因此，所有的第1441號決議要求的報告和討論，安理會對伊拉克的失敗，但沒有明確作出進一步的決定，批准生效。 “ Answering this argument Bingham replied, “First, it was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had: Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors had found no weapons of mass destruction, were making progress and expected to complete their task in a matter of months.”在回答這一論點賓回答說： “首先，它不是純說，伊拉克沒有遵守的方式證明訴諸武力，也沒有強有力的理由或事實確鑿證據表明它已經：漢斯布利克斯和他的團隊的武器核查人員沒有發現任何大規模殺傷性武器，正在取得進展，預計將完成他們的任務在幾個月內。 “ Goldsmith’s arguments were also flawed, said Bingham, as they had not said that military action had to be authorised by the United Nations Security Council.戈德史密斯的論點也存在缺陷，賓厄姆說，因為他們沒有說，軍事行動必須是授權的聯合國安全理事會。 “Secondly, it passes belief that a determination whether Iraq had failed to avail itself of its final opportunity was intended to be taken otherwise than collectively by the Security Council.” “其次，它相信，通過確定伊拉克是否未能利用最後機會是打算採取集體以外的其他安理會。 ” Bingham also rebutted the written legal advice Goldsmith sent to Tony Blair on March 7, 2003.賓厄姆還反駁的書面法律諮詢戈德史密斯向英國首相布萊爾3月7日， 2003年。 This advice was not made public at the time.這方面的諮詢沒有公開的時間。 In that communication Goldsmith stated that he considered resolution 1441 could, in principle, revive the authority to use force against Iraq contained in resolution 678.在這種通信戈德史密斯說，他認為第1441號決議原則上可以恢復的權威對伊拉克使用武力載於第678 。 Answering Goldsmith’s reasoning, Bingham said, “A reasonable case could be made that resolution 1441 was capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in resolution 678, but the argument could only be sustainable if there were ‘strong factual grounds’ for concluding that Iraq had failed to take the final opportunity.回答戈德史密斯的推理，賓厄姆說： “一個合理的情況下可以作出的第1441號決議能夠在原則上恢復授權在第678 ，但爭論只能是可持續的，如果有強大的事實理由'的結論，伊拉克未能採取的最後機會。 There would need to be ‘hard evidence’.”有需要'確鑿證據' 。 “ Bingham also cited three senior legal figures who had opposed Goldsmith’s line of argument.賓厄姆還列舉三個高級法律的數字誰反對戈德史密斯的論點。 Lord Alexander QC had described it as “unconvincing”.亞歷山大勳爵的QC描述了它是“不能令人信服” 。 Professor Philippe Sands QC, as a “bad argument” and Professor Vaughan Lowe QC said it was “fatuous”.教授菲利普金沙御用大律師，作為一個“壞的論點”和沃恩教授羅威的QC說，這是“昏庸” 。 Bingham sent copies of his speech to Goldsmith and Straw before he spoke in order to allow them to respond.賓厄姆發送講話史密斯和斯特勞在他說話，以便讓他們作出回應。 Straw said, “I do not accept Lord Bingham’s conclusions, which do not, I am afraid, take proper account of the text of Security Council Resolution 1441, nor its negotiating history”.斯特勞說， “我不接受賓厄姆勳爵的結論，這不，我很害怕，適當考慮到文安理會1441號決議，也沒有談判的歷史” 。 Goldsmith attempted to downplay the significance of Bingham’s comments stating, “I stand by my advice of March 2003 that it was legal for Britain to take military action in Iraq.史密斯試圖淡化的意義賓厄姆的評論指出， “我堅持我的意見2003年3月，這是法律對英國採取軍事行動在伊拉克。 I would not have given that advice if it were not genuinely my view.我不會考慮這些意見如果不是真正的我的看法。 Lord Bingham is entitled to his own legal perspective five years after the event, but at the time and since then many nations other than ours took part in the action and did so believing that they were acting lawfully.”賓厄姆勳爵的標題是他自己的法律角度看五年後的事件，但在時間和此後其他許多國家比我們參加了行動，並因此認為他們是合法的。 “ Goldsmith’s comments are an attempt to whitewash the historical record.戈德史密斯的意見，企圖掩蓋歷史記錄。 The illegality of the war was widely recognised by many international legal experts before the invasion.是非法的戰爭被廣泛認可的許多國際法律專家面前的入侵。 The World Socialist Web Site consistently drew attention to the perfidious nature of the war preparations and detailed in many statements and articles how the US and Britain were determined to carry out their criminal agenda of war at all costs. 世界社會主義網站一貫提請注意背信棄義性質的戰爭準備和詳細的許多言論和文章如何美國和英國決心履行其刑事議程的戰爭不惜一切代價。 (See （見 “WSWS Chairman David North denounces Iraq war at Dublin debate” “主席大衛WSWS北譴責伊拉克戰爭在都柏林辯論” and “和“ The war against Iraq and America’s drive for world domination對伊拉克的戰爭和美國的推動統治世界 “.) “ 。 ） Goldsmith was well aware of such international opinion at the time.史密斯很清楚，例如國際輿論的時間。 As far back as July 2002, Goldsmith himself warned cabinet ministers that a war against Iraq could not be justified on self-defence or humanitarian grounds, and that the goal of regime change would be unlawful.早在2002年7月，史密斯本人內閣部長警告說，對伊拉克的戰爭是沒有道理的自衛或人道主義的理由，而且目標制度的變化將是非法的。 On March 7, 12 days before the war against Iraq started, Goldsmith authored a 13-page memo in which he advised Prime Minister Tony Blair that the government’s case for invasion could be declared illegal if it ever came before a court of law on as many as six counts. 3月7日， 12天前對伊拉克的戰爭開始，戈德史密斯撰寫了13頁的備忘錄，他建議英國首相布萊爾政府的入侵情況可宣布為非法的，如果是以往任何時候都在法院的法律多達六項。 Despite this advice he stated that, while a second UN resolution would be safer, in his opinion it was legal to go to war on the basis of resolutions 1441, 678, and 687.儘管這個建議，他指出，雖然第二個聯合國決議將是安全的，他認為這是法律對伊拉克發動戰爭的基礎上，第1441號決議， 678和687 。 Finally, on March 13, Goldsmith met with two Blair government officials—Baroness Morgan, Blair’s director of political and government relations, and Lord Falconer, a Home Office minister.最後， 3月13日，戈德史密斯會見了兩個布萊爾政府官員，摩根女男爵，布萊爾的主管政治和政府的關係，福爾克納勳爵，一個家庭辦公室部長。 It was at this meeting that Goldsmith abandoned all his previous warnings and approved the legality of the government’s position.這是本次會議的史密斯被遺棄的所有他以前的警告，並批准了合法的政府的立場。 Goldsmith’s stance was attributed by a number of opposition politicians, commentators and political analysts as being the result of massive pressure placed on him by the Blair government.戈德史密斯的立場，原因是一些反對派政界人士，評論家和政治分析家認為由於巨大的壓力放在他的布萊爾政府。 His written answer to parliament on March 17 contained no reference to any of his previous ambivalent legal advice to the government.他的書面答复議會於3月17日沒有提到任何他以前的矛盾的法律諮詢，政府。 The full truth is yet to emerge about the preparation and instigation of the war against Iraq.充分的事實是尚未出現的籌備和唆使下，對伊拉克的戰爭。 Those responsible, the US and British governments, are continuing to utilise every possible means to ensure they are not brought to justice for a war of aggression.負責人，美國和英國政府，將繼續利用一切可能的手段，以確保他們沒有受到正義的侵略戰爭。 The Information Tribunal in Britain is presently hearing the government’s appeal against the information commissioner’s ruling that it should release cabinet minutes covering when the legality of the Iraq invasion was discussed.信息法庭在英國目前正在聽取政府提起上訴的信息專員的裁決，它應該釋放內閣分鐘時，涉及的合法性入侵伊拉克進行了討論。 Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell, Britain’s most senior civil servant is representing the government in seeking to overturn Richard Thomas’s order to disclose because of the “gravity and controversial nature” of the subject and the controversy over the attorney general’s advice.內閣秘書格斯奧唐奈爵士，英國最高級公務員是代表政府在尋求推翻理查德托馬斯的命令，因為披露的“嚴重性和爭議性”的主題和爭論總檢察長'語的意見。 The government appealed to the Information Tribunal, where O’Donnell is expected to argue that the release of the minutes would prevent ministers from having frank discussions and would undermine the principle of collective cabinet responsibility.政府呼籲國際法庭的信息，在奧唐奈預計認為，釋放分鐘將防止部長有坦率的討論，並會破壞原則的集體內閣責任。 Thomas has argued that cabinet minutes are not automatically withheld from the Freedom of Information Act.托馬斯認為，內閣分鐘不會自動扣留的信息自由法案。 While Bingham was able to dismantle the legal arguments of Goldsmith and the British government, he was doubtful that there would be any prosecution of those responsible.雖然賓厄姆能夠拆除的法律論據的史密斯和英國政府，他懷疑會有任何起訴肇事者。 He concluded that, although these states had not been “hauled before the International Court of Justice or any other tribunal to answer for their actions, they have been arraigned at the bar of world opinion, and been judged unfavourably, with resulting damage to their standing and influence.”他得出的結論是，雖然這些國家並沒有“在閱兵儀式上國際法院或任何其他回答法庭對他們的行動，他們已經傳訊在酒吧世界輿論，以及被認為不利，造成的損害及其常委會和影響力。 “ This is not enough.這是不夠的。 In the conclusion of a three part statement published on May 22, 2007, “The US war and occupation of Iraq—the murder of a society”, the World Socialist Web Site insisted, “The premeditated destruction of an entire society carried out on the basis of lies and in pursuit of the financial and geo-strategic interests of America’s ruling elite constitutes a war crime of historic proportions, punishable under the same statutes and on the basis of the same principles as those used to condemn leading figures of Germany’s Third Reich at Nuremberg…在最後的三個組成部分發表聲明5月22日， 2007年， “美國的戰爭和佔領伊拉克，殺害了一個社會” ，世界社會主義網站堅持說： “有預謀的破壞整個社會上進行根據的謊言和追求的財政和地緣戰略利益，美國的統治精英構成了戰爭罪歷史性的，可根據同一章程，並根據同樣的原則所用譴責的主要人物德國的第三帝國在紐倫堡... “For these crimes to go unpunished and those responsible to continue acting with impunity would have fatal implications for the political, social and indeed moral life of the US and indeed the world. “對於這些罪行的人逍遙法外，肇事者將繼續採取行動而不受懲罰將產生致命影響的政治，社會和道德生活確實對美國乃至世界。 It would only render the next round of war crimes and atrocities that much easier and more inevitable.它只會使下一輪的戰爭罪行和暴行，更容易和更不可避免。 “The struggle against the war in Iraq must be waged on the basis of the demand for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US troops, the implementation of a massive program of humanitarian and economic aid to the Iraqi people, and the prosecution of all those responsible for this war before an independent and international tribunal”. “的鬥爭，反對伊拉克戰爭的發動必須的基礎上，要求立即和無條件撤出所有美國軍隊，實施了大規模計劃的人道主義和經濟援助給伊拉克人民，並起訴所有那些負責這場戰爭之前，一個獨立的國際法庭“ 。 Have Your Say: Lord Bingham says Iraq invasion was a violation of international law 你說：賓厄姆勳爵說，入侵伊拉克是違反國際法的行為 Please read our請仔細閱讀我們的 posting guidelines before posting張貼在發布前的指導方針 . 。 Alternatively或者 you can discuss this report here你可以討論這份報告在這裡 . 。 Related News 相關新聞
| Wal-Mart worker dies after shoppers knock him down沃爾瑪工人死亡後，他敲購物下跌 Last post by cbamber85 @ 11:24 AM 最後職位cbamber85 @上午11時24分 Go to Forum進入論壇 | Latest Topics最新的話題 More troops to fight for a lost cause更多的部隊打擊丟失原因 Last post by Thinking Man's Idiot @ 11:24 AM 最後的思考後人的白痴@上午11時24分 Time to say no further時間說不進一步 Last post by Thinking Man's Idiot @ 11:20 AM 最後的思考後人的白痴@上午11時20分 ID cards, CCTV, the ban on "glorifying terrorism" and the crackdown on protest ID卡，閉路電視，取締“美化恐怖主義”和鎮壓抗議 Last post by Thinking Man's Idiot @ 11:13 AM 最後的思考後人的白痴@上午11時13分 Scotland unites against racism蘇格蘭團結起來反對種族主義 Last post by Thinking Man's Idiot @ 11:00 AM 最後的思考後人的白痴@上午11:00 Bill Hicks- Rant in E-Minor條例草案希克斯言論，在電子商務中的小調 Last post by austenjonesufg @ 10:32 AM 最後職位austenjonesufg @上午10時32分 Bush wants history to see him as a liberator of millions - Uh good luck with that布什希望歷史上看到他作為一個解放者數以百萬計-嗯好運氣與 Last post by Unregistered @ 10:23 AM 上次未註冊後@上午10時23分 America's Child Soldiers: US Military Recruiting Children to Serve in the Armed Force美國的兒童兵：美軍徵募兒童入伍服兵役部隊 Last post by Mick @ 09:21 AM 最後職位米克@上午09點21分 Perspective for Veterans’, GIs’ & War Resisters’ Movement in the New Period視角退伍軍人，地理信息系統' ＆反戰者運動新時期 Last post by Unregistered @ 09:09 AM 上次未註冊後@上午09時09分 Do they only breathe in...?難道他們只能呼吸英寸.. ？ Last post by Thinking Man's Idiot @ 08:48 AM 最後的思考後人的白痴@上午8時48分  Email This Page To A Friend 本頁發送給朋友 Latest Headlines 最新的頭條
More更多 World News世界新聞  Archive 存檔
 |
About 大約 | | DVD Store DVD商店 | | Opinion 意見 | | Reviews 評語 | | Special Guests 特別來賓 | | Webmasters 網站管理員 |
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. 中表達的意見RINF新聞電線和通訊是唯一的責任作者（ s ）和不一定反映意見的管理員。 RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. RINF.COM ：打破新聞和其他媒體的版權-複製及分發自由。 News Forum 新聞論壇 |
