User talk:Izzedine: Difference between revisions

This article is part of the series on the
History of Iraq
the land between the rivers
Ancient Iraq
9,500 BCE - 5,500 BCE
Pre-Pottery Neolithic · Jarmo Hassuna culture · Halafian culture
Sumerian Civilization 5,500 BCE - 2,000 BCE
Samarran culture · Eridu Ubaid period · Uruk period Jemdet Nasr period Early Dynastic period Akkadian Empire · Gutian dynasty Neo-Sumerian Empire
Assyria • Babylonia 2,000 BCE - 640 CE
Amorites · Hurrians · Mitanni Hittites · Kassites · Aramaeans Neo-Assyrian Empire · Neo-Babylonian Empire Chaldea · Median Empire Achaemenid Assyria · Achaemenid Babylonia Seleucid Babylonia · Parthian Babylonia Roman Assyria · Roman Mesopotamia Asuristan
Islamic Golden Age 640 CE - 1258 CE
Islamic conquest of Iraq Rashidun Caliphate · Umayyad Caliphate Abbasid Caliphate · Ayyubid Sultanate
1258 CE - 1508 CE
Mongol invasion of Iraq Ilkhanate · Jalayirid Sultanate Kara Koyunlu · Ak Koyunlu
Modern Era 1508 CE - Present
Safavid dynasty · Ottoman Empire Mamluk rule in Iraq British Mandate of Mesopotamia Kingdom of Iraq · Republic of Iraq –––– • ––––

[[Category:Iraq templates [[Category:History and events templates

The US is a signatory to the Charter of the Organization of American States, a multilateral treaty. You might enjoy reading Chapter IV, Fundamental Rights and Duties of States.

Here is an extract:

Article 21

The territory of a State is inviolable; it may not be the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever. No territorial acquisitions or special advantages obtained either by force or by other means of coercion shall be recognized.

harlan (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The members of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Assembly of States are working on a satisfactory definition for the crime of aggression. The ICC isn't part of the UN, so the member states can adopt their own definition. In the meantime, you can mention this sourced fact in a neutral narrative about the invasion of Iraq. The US had a binding obligation under a valid international treaty not to invade or occupy the territory of another state for any reason.

Under Article 13 of the UN Charter, the General Assembly is tasked with the progressive codification of international law. It adopted a "Definition of Aggression", which it annexed to UN GA Res. 3314 (XXIX) (1974). It said that the invasion or occupation of the territory of another state was an act of aggression. However article 2 of that annex contained a loophole. It implicitly required a Security Council determination that an act of aggression was serious in nature. Any of the permanent members could block a resolution and prevent the adoption of a determination. That was the definition the UN International Law Commission proposed in the draft statute it provided to the Rome Conference that established the ICC. The member states did not find that definition to be acceptable. harlan (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Harlan, much appreciated, does the jurisdiction of the OAS treaty extend beyond the Americas? Any idea of the current status of the ICC vis-à-vis a definition and whether a final adoption would have retrospective effect? (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latest progress report from the ICC Assembly of States is here: [1]

The Inter-American System is comprised of a number of treaties that were, or still are applicable to all of the American states in the conduct of their relations with the community of nations. The system was developed to help secure justice and international peace. Intervention by one State in the internal or external affairs of another State has always been condemned. The Inter-American Reciprocal Assistance and Solidarity (Act of Chapultepec); March 6, 1945 contains a brief overview and a recital of the key historical milestones in the development of the system. Unilateral responses to non-continental security threats were not permitted under the system. For example, the Declaration of Principles of Inter-American Solidarity and Cooperation; December 21, 1936 said that every act susceptible of disturbing the peace of America affects each and every nation, and justifies the initiation of the procedure of consultation provided for in the Convention for the Maintenance, Preservation and Reestablishment of Peace.

The UN Charter was modeled on the Inter-American system. It also required consultation and a determination by the Security Council before any military action against Iraq. The purpose of the United Nations is the prevention and removal of threats to peace and the suppression of acts of aggression. The Charter requires the members to refrain from the threat of, or use of force. According to communis opinio the obligations imposed by those provisions of the Charter have become part of customary international law and are binding on all States, whether they are members of the United Nations or not. see for example "The International Law Commission's Draft Articles on State Responsibility: Part 1, Articles 1-35", By United Nations International Law Commission, Compiled by Shabtai Rosenne, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, ISBN 0792311795, page 189. harlan (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Though I wasn't involved..I am a horrible talk page stalker ;) and happened to stumble to this page and read what happend. I am very sorry that this happened to you and for being resilient and never quitting to try to clear your name---and never letting discouragement get you. You deserve this;) SchnitzelMannGreek. 11:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		For all your hard work on Iraq. There just was not one single barnstar I could give as you deserved about 10, so I gave this one. Hope you like it and keep up the good work! ScythreTalkContribs 19:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this edit leaves me humbled. NOT. So you believe we should be thankful you are "donating your time" to introduce trivial see also links, while most of the remaining time you are wasting everybody else's time with your private obsessions about "Ancient Iraq".

I have, in fact "donated my time" to write an actual WP:LEAD at history of Iraq which did discuss the history of Iraq (as opposed to grandiose eulogies on how Ancient Iraq is the origin of everything good and civilized). Do keep prancing around like this and you'll be back on WP:ANI and hit by the banhammer in no time. This has gone on long enough, and it has become clear that you simply aren't here to help the project. --dab (𒁳) 13:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I know you don't like me, and I regret that, but please don't harass me and accuse me of bad things. I'm not here to upset anybody, and I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm trying to improve neglected articles which I care about, that is what people do. I don't wish to cause you any bother and I can't understand why you wish to cause me. I will seek help from eguor administrators if it continues, but I'd prefer not to. Izzedine 13:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Please be civil with other people. I don't know you, and you are accosting me and insulting my interests. What is the problem with my edits on History of Iraq? that you mass-reverted calling me a "troll". Izzedine 14:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned to stop time-wasting. It's clear you didn't listen to the warning I gave you after the off-wiki canvassing episode. As a result I have banned you permanently: you may appeal this via the usual channels. Moreschi (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]