• Web
  • Humsa
  • Videos
  • Forum
  • Q2A
rabia shakeel : meri dua hai K is bar imran khan app is mulk k hukmaran hun To: suman(sialkot) 4 years ago
maqsood : hi how r u. To: hamza(lahore) 4 years ago
alisyed : hi frinds 4 years ago
nasir : hi To: wajahat(karachi) 4 years ago
khadam hussain : aslamoalikum pakistan zinsabad To: facebook friends(all pakistan) 4 years ago
Asif Ali : Asalaam O Aliakum . To: Khurshed Ahmed(Kashmore) 4 years ago
khurshedahmed : are you fine To: afaque(kashmore) 4 years ago
mannan : i love all To: nain(arifwala) 4 years ago
Ubaid Raza : kya haal hai janab. To: Raza(Wah) 4 years ago
qaisa manzoor : jnab AoA to all 4 years ago
Atif : Pakistan Zinda bad To: Shehnaz(BAHAWALPUR) 4 years ago
khalid : kia website hai jahan per sab kuch To: sidra(wazraabad) 4 years ago
ALISHBA TAJ : ASSALAM O ELIKUM To: RUKIYA KHALA(JHUDO) 4 years ago
Waqas Hashmi : Hi Its Me Waqas Hashmi F4m Matli This Website Is Owsome And Kois Shak Nahi Humsa Jaise Koi Nahi To: Mansoor Baloch(Matli) 4 years ago
Gul faraz : this is very good web site where all those channels are avaiable which are not on other sites.Realy good. I want to do i..... 4 years ago
shahid bashir : Mein aap sab kay liye dua'go hon. 4 years ago
mansoor ahmad : very good streming 4 years ago
Dr.Hassan : WISH YOU HAPPY HEALTHY LIFE To: atif(karachi) 4 years ago
ishtiaque ahmed : best channel humsa live tv To: umair ahmed(k.g.muhammad) 4 years ago
Rizwan : Best Streaming Of Live Channels. Good Work Site Admin 4 years ago
Threatening Iran will get US nowhere
Source: The Nation | 12-03-2013

peaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (Aipac) annual conference, US Vice-President Joe Biden insisted that President Barack Obama was not bluffing about using force to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, too, called for a “clear and credible military threat” against Tehran, underscoring that sanctions alone would not make Iran cave at the negotiation table.These threats were issued at a time when the latest round of nuclear talks between Iran and the P5+1 in Kazakhstan were positively characterised, by many accounts, as a ‘turning point’. New rounds of negotiations were set to take place in April.


If we set aside all the ethical and political implications of threatening a negotiating party in the course of negotiations (especially at a time when talks seem finally to be heading in the right direction), there are at least two major legal issues with these threats that seem to have fallen into America’s blind spot.


First, the ‘threat of force’ against a sovereign member of the United Nations is illegal under international law. It violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which unequivocally requires all member-states to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force.”
The term ‘threat’ refers to a government’s announcement of an act of violence for the purpose of intimidating another government into changing its policies. Under the Charter, only the Security Council is qualified to make such threats.


Every other threat of force is unlawful.It should also be understood that ‘threat’ within the meaning of Article 2(4) must be understood in a restrictive sense. Hostile statements that are common between antagonistic countries, especially when they’re uttered by officials who do not have the constitutional authority to materialize them, do not carry the same legal weight as potent military threats directly issued in a particular context (for the purpose of influencing negotiations) by top officials who actually have the power to order military operations.


Alarming devel



Watching the highest political authorities of Israel and the US so impetuously violate a fundamental rule of international law is on its own very alarming. It signals to Iran and the international community that the West is not willing to play by the rules. It also greatly undermines the credibility and impartiality of all international organisations involved in the negotiating process.


Some would rightly argue that if any other state had so blatantly breached such a central bedrock of the post-UN charter international order, the Security Council or, at least, the secretary-general of the United Nations would have certainly issued a strong condemnation in reply.


Second, and more important, according to a well-known principle of international law, an agreement that is obtained through duress and coercion is considered invalid. The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which codifies some of the most fundamental norms in the field, is very clear on the subject.


Its Article 52 specifically renders void any international agreement “which has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law.”The International Court of Justice confirmed this position in a 1973 case between the United Kingdom and Iceland, stating in very clear terms that: “There can be no doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognised in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under customary international law, an agreement concluded under the threat of force is void.”


In other words, even if Tehran does cave in to the “clear and credible military threat” that Netanyahu expects world powers to put forth, and if it actually concedes to a nuclear agreement procured under duress, Iran could very well invoke Article 52 to nullify it at later date. In fact, the military threat that Aipac, Netanyahu, and his American backers seem to view today as valuable ‘leverage’ in the ongoing negotiations with Iran could very well turn into the Achilles’ heel of any future arrangement.


Netanyahu and those American officials who are poised to make military threats in the course of negotiations should be careful not to end up procuring an ‘agreement’ that contains the legal seeds of its own dissolution.Reza Nasri is an international lawyer specializing in Iranian affairs and charter and foreign relations law at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. 


 

Related News
Source: The Nation | 29-01-2013
Targeted killings: they are too secret There are reasons to be relieved by - and concerned about - the reports that the Obama administration is preparing a “playbook” of rules for targeted killings of suspected terrorists abroad. If drone-strike assassinations - which have already killed more than 2,000 people in Pakistan and elsewhere - are to remain an important element of counter-t..... Read more
Source: Geo News | 30-08-2013
 Report says DNA test verified bin Laden's identity WASHINGTON: Secret budget documents show that a U.S. military laboratory in Afghanistan analyzed DNA from Osama bin Laden's corpse and confirmed his identify shortly after he was killed by a Navy commando team. The Pentagon denied more than a year ago it had any records of these tests in a response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by The..... Read more
Source: Dawn News | 05-04-2013
New Zealand troops begin withdrawal from Afghanistan New Zealand troops began their withdrawal from Afghanistan on Friday, with the lowering of the flag for the last time at their base in Bamiyan to mark the end of a 10-year involvement in the war. The government announced the early withdrawal last year, with the New Zealand contingent originally scheduled to remain until September 2014Ten New Zealand sol..... Read more
Latest News
Source: Dunya News | 06-05-2014
Source: Dunya News | 06-05-2014
Source: Dunya News | 05-05-2014
Source: Dunya News | 05-05-2014