I made this post a few months back, but I think it bears repeating.Jackson50 said:
Well, Congress has the authority to deratify the UN charter, which would make any statutory authorization of military action in libya passed by the UN Security Council irrelevant with regards to the US, and then the president would have to go through congress.
That option is there.
Also, it should be noted that the United States Mission to the UN has veto power on the Security Council, meaning any authorization of force has to go through the US. The US Mission to the UN is led by the Permanent Resident of the US to the UN, an ambassador which is nominated by the President and must be approved by the Senate (the position is currently held by Susan Rice)
In other words...
1. The UN must go through the US (as well as China, Russia, France, and the UK) to authorize the use of force, thanks to the veto power all permanent members of the security council have. Any one of these five countires can object and stop any resolution which authorizes the use of force.
2. The US delegation to the UN is approved by the Senate.
3. The executive branch has to go through the senate to receive permission to ratify any treaty.
4. The UN Charter is a treaty that has been ratified and adopted by the US.
5. Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security Council is allowed to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to take military and nonmilitary action to "restore international peace and security". This includes wars and acts of aggression in violation of international resolutions, as well as civil wars and acts of aggression by a member nation against its own people.
6. UN Resolution 1970 (2011) was passed by the Security Council and demanded an immediate end to the violence in Libya and for the government to address the "legitimate demands of the population".
7. Gadaffi's regime did not comply with resolution 1970.
8. UN Resolution 1973 (2011) was passed by the Security Council, which called (again) for a cease-fire, imposed a no fly zone over libya and authorized the use of all means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas in Libya, except for an occupational force.
I do not see anything wrong here.
Since there is some ambiguity and dispute about the conditions under which the Security Council can approve the use of force, that is the reason for the initial passage of resolution 1970. It recognized the conflict within Libya and called for its peaceful resolution by the parties involved. When the violence continued, gadaffi was acting in direct violation of an international resolution, which led to 1973's passage.
Resolution 1970 recognized the acts of aggression internationally, while Resolution 1973 specified a UN response under Chapter VII.
At no point in this process was the US powerless to stop the authorization of military action, the power to authorize the US to act is defined by a treaty whose ratification was consented to by the Senate, and the people representing the US in the United Nations who had the power to stop the authorization of military action also had to be approved by the Senate.
Having been given this statutory authorization, the subsequent deployment of the armed forces by the commander in chief is in compliance with the war powers act.
What is the problem? The only thing this talk has shown is that the Iraq invasion was almost certainly in violation of the UN Charter.
PS:
On March 1, the Senate unanimously passed resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down.
You could argue that the House should have a greater say in international matters and the ratificaiton of treaties, but that requires a change to the constitution.
