対イラク武力行使

Citing references from an academic doesn't make your point absolute or PRACTICAL, no matter how high up the apparatus the academic comes from. Academics can elaborate on their THEORETICAL points of int'l legal norms but are not realistic on the PRACTICAL application of the int'l legal norms but only on THEORY.

If this professor's theory is LAW, then why is Iraq's INVASION to the Kuwait ILLEGAL?
Can you elaborate on this point? AND if none of the principles stated in the UN Charter is non-binding, then what are the powers of UNSC Resolutions to both the member states and IRAQ? Can you explain the great contradiction here?

Why is UNSC Resolution on IRAQ binding, when UN Charter -- source of UNSC Resolution -- is non-binding, as the professor says? If you can explain this reasoning then I will rest my case. Otherwise, I can't just accept the word of a bureaucratic reference who ignores PRACTICALITY and puts weight on THEORETICAL facts.

If what he says is the LAW, then UN Charter is non-binding to all states, hence there are no "international criminals". Now, is this true? Think.

Regards