対イラク武力行使

For the first time in our debate you are making 'some' sense, but I still cannot agree to all of you points. And just to be frank I will continue end this debate in your mother tongue.

＞まず、外交上の協定に拘束力があるなんていう基礎的なことを私に確認する必要はありません。だからこそ、アメリカが自国の防衛を邪魔するような協定に調印をするはずがないと言ったのです。

No. The reason US can accede to such treaty is because US thinks itself as above-the-law while others must be bound by it. It is this double-standard that irritates the third world.

＞それから現実と理想論をもちだすのであれば、現実的になぜ国連の決議に拘束力があるのかといえば、加盟国に決議施行の意思と力があるからです。つまりですね、イラクのクエート侵略が「違法」なのは、国連加盟国が違法だと同意してけしからんイラクを追い出そうという行動に出たから「違法」なんですよ。

This is the part you are making most sense. And I'm surprised at the sudden clarity you are starting to show at the culmination of this debate.

Yes it is true that the state party must have the WILL and the MEANS to enact the UNSC resolutions. BUT, that does not make Iraq de-jure illegal but only de-facto. What make Iraq's action illegal is the DECISION made by the Security Council, which is authorized to make decisions binding to all state parties. What makes American action illegal is that US have evaded the UNSC decision on legality when they were finalizing the plan to attack Iraq. Iraq decision made since the Gulf War is all binding because it was discussed in the Security Council and so determined. The legality of American action is thus still in question.

The fact that UNSC ruled against Iraq is because it deemed all relevant resolutions as binding and that Iraq must abide by it. In the current Iraq War, Iraq failed to abide by not fully complying to the conditions stated in the resolution. The world community thus denounced Iraq for its defiance against the decision of the UNSC. This is the process, not because all other state parties had the WILL and MEANS to do it, but because all decisions went through a constructive process for consensus building.