[COMMUNISM LIST]Fwd: How you find this

Dear Friends,

This is a Japanese view on the recent incident in US!

seyedjavad

From: 大石　高久

To: seyedjavad@hotmail.com

Subject: How you find this

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 23:11:35 +0900

Dear Seyed,

I forward you something which you might be interesting.

We are now working on a similar Appeal to make against American retaliation in

future.

With best wishes,

****************************************************************************

Takahisa Oishi

Phone & Fax: +81-476-95-6483　

E-mail: CXP02422@nifty.ne.jp

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~mu3t-oois/search-e-spe.html

****************************************************************************

In terms of international law, there is no legitimacy for wars of

retaliation against the recent terrorist attacks.

1. A conflict becomes recognized as a "war" from the perspective of

international law not simply when military actions are taken, but when a

sovereign state or a guerrilla group expresses its intention to wage a

war. Therefore, the recent terrorist attacks would be recognized as

crimes, not as a war. Thus, the recent incidents should be treated as

crimes.

2. International law makes it clear that efforts for peaceful resolution

should be made first to deal with any disputes. Since President Bush has

not demonstrated efforts to resolve any possibility of future

occurrences of the terrorist attacks in peaceful way, new military

actions are not legitimate.

3. International law does not recognize the legitimacy of wars of

retaliation. Therefore, even if the terrorist attack this time signifies

a beginning of a war, retaliation cannot be allowed unless the

terrorists continue their attacks.

4. In order for a war of retaliation against the recent terrorist

attacks to be recognized as legitimately exercising the right of

self-defense, it must be waged against existing and obvious illegal

actions. Preventive self-defense is not accepted by either international

war or domestic law. Therefore, a war of retaliation against the

terrorist attacks is not accepted as a legitimate act of self-defense.

5. The principles of international law state that there is no obligation

for one state to hand over criminals to another state unless an

agreement to do so has been concluded between the two states. President

Bush's argument that military force will be used if the criminals are

not handed over is itself in violation of international law.

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that a war of retaliation

against the terrorist attacks is not legitimate under international law.

September 19, 2001

Hisatake Kato, Dean of Tottori University of Environmental Studies

Kind Regards

Seyed