Is it legal to bomb ISIL? Really?

One of the things said about the deployment of USA, GB and others' military  hardware in Iraq is that, having been invited to do so by the Iraqi government, it is legal to do so. Presumably we are talking 'legal' according to the United Nations charter. And it is true that the charter grants member states the right to self-defence and to call on help in self-defence. Ostensibly then, yes, it's legal.

But, as I said to someone yesterday, I'm not sure that it is "fully legal". By that is my suspicion that the means and circumstances count against what is actually being proposed. See paragraph 3 of Article 2:

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles

Now, I think that this is meant to be consonant with ideas of just war in that just war theory talks about 'jus in bello', that is that the means employed in the circumstances should be likely to resolve the matter with the minimum loss of life, minimum damage etc.

It seems to me that this is an international dispute even though we are talking about non-state actors. I can't see how, once other nations are called in it can fail to be an international dispute: some of the actors are Syrian, and there are Turkish, Saudi, and gulf state interests involved. But the more important thing is not endangering international peace, security and justice. Given the likelihood that going about things in the manner proposed and given the likely next developments (see here) there is very much a danger to security, peace and justice internationally (which also makes it an international concern).

The probability that the repeat of civilian "collateral" deaths and maimings such as we have seen in Afghanistan and previously in Iraq will take place in this campaign. This injustice will further inflame those already frustrated and angry with the West's involvement in the middle east who are likely to seek to carry out violent acts in the wider world and so international security and peace will be further strained and imperilled. In short, the course of action proposed (as it is at this point -I expect it will be approved, sadly) contradicts a fundamental article of the UN, and so cannot be said to be fully legal.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think there is some doubt about the proposal on legal grounds, surely.

How can we stop tax avoidance? | UK Uncut's Ellie Mae O'Hagan and City AM's Allister Heath | Comment is free | The Guardian

In an article about tax avoidance I found an interesting comment about companies:

Companies, at the end of the day, don't exist – they're just a bundle of contracts. As far as I'm concerned, companies are made up of people – some people provide capital, some people work there.

In the light of the work I'm doing on corprisations, I think I disagree but find an important insight in that. Companies clearly do exist: they're legal entities with rights and duties. They can be fined, they can pay tax. So even at the level of simple legalities, they can't be reduced to people and a bundle of contracts. Though clearly both people and contracts are essential to their existence. But also, culture, plant, money etc are involved and, more importantly, interactions which may become (and often do) quite complex and allow for the emergence of something that is not 'merely' a bundle of contracts.

However, this quote does help us to recall that contractual obligations are part of the essential support for the complexity.

How can we stop tax avoidance? | UK Uncut's Ellie Mae O'Hagan and City AM's Allister Heath | Comment is free | The Guardian:

Nurse loses battle to wear crucifix at work

I think that it was always going to end like this, when all was said and done -and I am wondering about the advice she may have been receiving. I have a great respect for Shirley Chaplin, but I suspect that she may have been misadvised and drawn into a battle that while helpful for deciding how the rules do or don't apply, probably doesn't advance the Christian cause very greatly. The final judgement was always going to contain a phrase like this: "and noted that wearing a crucifix was not a requirement of the Christian faith." and rule against her on this basis. There is no doubt that there are other issues involved in this case which need considering: the citing of health and safety to argue against her by the HA does sit ill with some of some of the allowed manifestations, for example. However, this is all trumped by the 'requirement of religion' issue. Wearing a crucifix is not a requirement of Christian faith; it's a choice, one that sometimes has very deep personal significance, but it's a choice not a requirement.

The price we Christians pay for a faith that has a great deal of cultural adaptability is that we have few equivalents to Muslim, Sikh or Hindu signs and symbols. Praying is part of our faith but it is not legislated as a sine qua non of faithfulness exactly how or when; we are left to make grown-up decisions about how to organise it. We are enjoined to share our faith but we have no particular dress codes (except whatever is appropriate and modest) or particular items of clothing to mark us out. Do we really wish to submit to commands and regulations of humans ...? (see Paul in Galatians)

The problem for Christian fans, is that they want to display their faith and not cede the public display to faiths which do require these things. Actually, I have a great sympathy, actually, for the desire to have ones faith recognised in the workplace in a way analogous to Muslims or Sikhs, say. However, we have to confront the fact that because we don't have dress or behaviour codes that impact the workplace in that kind of way, we have to recognise that we can't 'go and do likewise'. What's more, these kinds of attempts to do so run the risk of bringing Christian faith into disrepute because they do smack of 'me too'-ism. Can't we celebrate the freedom our faith has rather than seek strictures and markers to make us like other nations -sorry- religions?

What we could, perhaps, argue is that workplaces should make access to Christian chaplains or somesuch possible because the flexibility of Christian faith means that Christians need to consider more carefully the way that they integrate their faith and their work ... but I'm not sure that really works. It is probably the only kind of approach that has any chance of sitting with the 'essential to faith' clause in equality and diversity legislation. The difficulty would be that this is probably something that other faiths would also wish to argue: on tap advice on how shariah applies, or what might be kosher ... And would we really want to outsource Christian theological reflection to 'experts'? Don't we want to develop Christian reflective practice in the whole of life? Only if chaplains would encourage 'self-theologising' on the part of workplace Christians can they be justified in Christian terms.

It ought to be our concern for the welfare of our co-workers and for justice, peace and right-doing that marks us out, not the ability to make demands of our employers or be paid up members of the awkward squad. That way, when something important comes up, we aren't simply dismissed but have a reservoir of respect and good will to draw on.
Christian nurse loses battle to wear crucifix at work | UK news | guardian.co.uk:

Sharia law incompatible with human rights

This article shows the dangers of headlines quite neatly, and, indeed of simplifying complex issues too much. As it is, the Guardian doesn't do a bad job with the article even if the headline could be interpreted misleadingly. Sharia law incompatible with human rights legislation, Lords say. One of the issues is to recall that, for example, while this statement is true: "The comments followed months of debate over the appropriateness of incorporating sharia courts into the UK's legal system. Such a move has been advocated by figures including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and Lord Phillips, the new senior law lord.", Rowan Williams' advocacy was caveated by saying that such allowance of sharia should be applied in such a way as to be compatible with existing human rights legislation. The other issue is to note that there are several interpretive traditions of sharia -though most of them would still be critiquable in this way. "'The fact is, however, that sharia law as it is applied in Lebanon was created by and for men in a male-dominated society,'" And that should alert us also to another dimension of the whole debate, that Muslim feminists would argue that Qur'anic principles are far more women-friendly than much traditional interpretations have allowed. However, that is a struggle that the Muslim Ummah largely still has to face; I'm not optimistic that it has the resources to respond well to that agenda given how the relevant doctrines have developed in Islam; it would mean going back behind developments now seen as normative. Still, you never know...

Big brother creep

This is a disturbing news report. Council uses criminal law to spy on school place applicants: The point I'm concerned about is summed up in this first sentence. "A council yesterday admitted using laws designed to track serious criminals to spy on a family for nearly three weeks to find out if they were lying about living in a school catchment area." Notice the reapplication and thus widening of the use of a law fram what was intended. And then recall that this government has several times, concerning its legislation, assured those of us concerned that the potential powers granted to agencies are too great and so likely to be abused that the intent is not to do that, so it is okay. Well, I can't help thinking that this is an example of precisely the worry we are articulating: that powers once granted tend to extend to their fullest expression. If you don't build in safeguards, you'll have trouble. Now let's remember this in connection with the Regulatory Reform Bill (I think that's right) and ID cards.

Blow to Brown plan to extend detention beyond 28 days | Terror threat to Britain | Guardian Unlimited

A parliamentary committee seems to evidence that there is still some sense about civil liberties being talked in some of the corridors of power. "Andrew Dismore, the committee's Labour chairman, demanded: 'Where is the supporting evidence to extend the detention period? As far as we've heard there has not yet been a case where 28 days was inadequate.'"
Blow to Brown plan to extend detention beyond 28 days | Terror threat to Britain | Guardian Unlimited:

Court clears anti-war saboteurs

I think that this is basically a jury in the UK recognising that some actions undertaken in Iraq could be illegal under international law and that, therefore, those who attempt to make it hard to carry out those actions are in the right. As one of those involved said; "It is a great relief - and a huge vote of confidence for anti-war protesters - that a jury were convinced that our actions were lawful."Court clears anti-war saboteurs | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited: