0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
This might be a little more of a history question than a legal one, but I was under the impression that the rules of NATO state an attack on one is an attack on all. So why didn't NATO respond to the Falklands Invasion by Argentina
Quote from: eja117 on December 24, 2010, 10:00:49 PMThis might be a little more of a history question than a legal one, but I was under the impression that the rules of NATO state an attack on one is an attack on all. So why didn't NATO respond to the Falklands Invasion by Argentinahttp://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm"Article 5The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."In other words, that provision only applies in Europe and North America. The wording of things like that was done explicitly as to exclude any wars and disputes over territories from the deal. Remember, this was signed in 1949, and so most of those nations still had colonies, and most nations didn't want to be obligated to go to war over colonial squabbles and wars of independence.
Roy and others. Please discuss when it's right to recuse yourself. Should Kagan and Thomas have to recuse themselves? Why? Why not? Because they have opinions? I'm not sure I understand this as well as I'd like.
Leeeettttt's just say a judge like Kagan doesn't recuse themselves from a case like this and later on it can be proven she lied. What would happen? If Thomas' wife is financially involved does that meet the criteria?