対イラク武力行使

以下、お互いのよりよい理解に達するためにカカシさんの“母語”の英語で試みます。

◇ 　 ◇ 　 ◇

Respecting your effort to rebut against my full argument, my decision is this; to debate in your quasi-mother tongue for the sake of facilitating better understainding of the exact wording used in the applicable laws. I think the primary problem here is your level of Japanese reading comprehension -- together with my own weak Japanese writing, and that seems to be the root cause of all of the misunderstandings that occured here which worked against you. So, to alleviate this I'll try ellaborating my counterargument on all of your false pretenses that tends to skew the debate into a mere 'discussion'.

So here goes nothing... (If you prefer, we can bring this subject to Yahoo! USA message boards for maintaintaing the integrity of this Japanese board)

1. BASICS OF INTERNATINAL LEGAL NORMS

First of all, the reason your logic is corrupted is because you don't seem to have the basic understanding of how int'l politcs and int'l norms work in action. You base your opinions on your own false pretenses that int'l law and norms guarantee TOTAL sovereign rights to all states. That's wrong.

What int'l treaties do is that they guarantee certain inviolable rights of sovereign states would be maintained BUT the treaty would surpass that under certain SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. All int'l treaties stipulate this and the reason the treaty has binding power to all parties to the treaty is that the state has acceded to accept ALL conditions UNLESS it has noted a 'reservation' to any specific article of the treaty.

Is everything clear until here?

(TBC)