No, I said that I had studied international law. In a law degree, you study a number of units, some compulsory, some elective. My electives were concentrated on commercial law, criminal law, taxation and international law. Simple as that. In economics, they were concentrated on accountancy, economics, and economic history.
In any event, I did answer you Q1.
My response was: "On a strict interpretation of Art 2(4) and 51, the answer may well be yes....But, to what extent has the USA acted in violation of international law to date?"
Strange though, if we were to sidestep the WoT, and Iraq issues and concentrate on North Korea, then, by your own words: "(U)nless a future attack on the United States is imminent, it cannot use military force".
That would suggest that The United States is justified in taking action against North Korea.
If then another test missile is fired into the Sea of Japan, or in the general direction of Japan, Japan could call upon its mutual defensive arrangements with the United States to bring about a retaliatory response. Again, something that could conceivably be sanctioned under both the UN Charter, and in International Law.
The legal basis to authorising military responses to acts of terrorism can be founded in Resolutions 1368 and 1373 (moreso, 1373), as well as in the self defence articles of the UN Charter.
The Congressional resolution, therefore, was not in violation of international law, nor was the military action taken against Afghanistan.
As for your comment:
"the U.S. must employ other means including extradition, and resolutions of the Security Council, which could eventually authorize the use of force to effectuate the arrest of suspects", ..... the UNSC did so act.
On your Q2, the events of 9-11 have not been invoked in the name of Iraq.
Mind you, of course, you seem to advocate that persistent non-compliance by the Iraqi regime over a period of 12 years amounts to justified behaviour.
There is a debate about whether those at Camp X-Ray should be held as prisoners of war, as opposed to terrorist suspects. The debate is a valid one and you could well be right on that score. But, then again, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (and thereupon, the country itself) was only recognised by 3 countries in the lead-up to 9-11. Therefore, equally so, one could argue that there was no such thing as an Afghanistan state at the time of 9-11 or after. On that basis, the Taliban, and al-Qaida would not be afforded Geneva Convention status from a prisoner of war perspective, as they were neither members of, or representative towards, any State.
In my own view, the Camp X-Ray inmates should be afforded Geneva Convention status.
Equally so, they should also be charged (as members of the Taliban and al-Qaida regimes) with crimes against humanity and tried in the same way as the Nuremburg Trials. This is one of the reasons why post 9-11 investigators were carefully examining the evidence to determine whether war crimes' charges could be laid (ie: regarding the use and deployment of WMD).
