Comments on: Prime Minister’s press conference

By: Garry C

Garry C — Tue, 02 Mar 2004 13:09:02 +0000

Is it just me or does it sound like Blair is implying we are the ones being uunreasonable? I generalise a little but to suggest that we can export democracy - but then proceed to ignore the process and international laws to boot - doesn’t set a good example.

In short (no pun) moral authority has vacated No 10 and the world is most definitely not a safer place.It makes you wonder what would it take for Blair to actually stand up and say, oops we went too far?

So who is unreasonable?

By: Mark Butterworth

Mark Butterworth — Tue, 02 Mar 2004 03:02:05 +0000

In his second response to questions, Mr Blair argued his support for International Law. However, the way he said it was interesting.

He opened by saying "I recognise all the Conventions to which we are signatories as Conventions we have to abide by" and then said "And we also have a situation where the intelligence agencies in this country abide by our own law".

To me it sounds like he is saying there’s international law, BUT then then there’s our law (as opposed to AND then there’s our law). It like saying if our law says we can then we’re ok (even if it contradicts international law).

Also, did you notice the me and them in his response - "I recognise" international law followed by "the intelligence agencies…abide by our own law".

Sounds like a perfectly good non-answer to me…

By: Dathi O'Grum

Dathi O'Grum — Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:00:39 +0000

When will the Cory Report be published? Judge Cory has reported on allegations of collusion between the British security forces and paramilitary (i.e. terrorist) killings in Northern Ireland. What is the point of holding an enquiry if the findings are not published? Why are you so afraid of the truth?

By: Chris Lightfoot

Chris Lightfoot — Mon, 01 Mar 2004 09:14:17 +0000

http://www.unog.ch/archives/un_priv.htm is the convention; the relevant bit, Article II section 2, is:
"The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action."
and perhaps section 3,
"The archives of the United Nations, and in general all documents belonging to it or held by it, shall be inviolable wherever located."

By: Matthew

Matthew — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:37:02 +0000

http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2004/db022604.doc.htm says it’s Article II of the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

Looking at that site, should we be scraping the Sec-Gen’s daily briefing too?

By: Chris Lightfoot

Chris Lightfoot — Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:43:42 +0000

Does anyone know which Vienna Convention provision is supposed to have been violated if the alleged spying on Kofi Annan et al. had taken place? Without any specialist knowledge, it looks to me as if article 27 #2 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/diplomat.htm may be at issue:

"2. The official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable. Official correspondence means all correspondence relating to the mission and its functions."

– but (a) does this Convention apply to officers at the UN? (b) Is a telephone conversation "correspondence"? (c) It looks to me as if that Convention describes the duties between two states concerning their diplomatic representatives — does it apply to the UN?