Neutrality is quite clear, commentators are not

by Irish Neutrality is a cowardly joke. Fri Jan 31, 2003 16:23

Irish Neutality was cowardly during the holocaust of WW2 and it's still cowardly. It's a term used by idiots/far-leftists today as a cover-all term to opt out of anything that they don't like.

by Adam Fri Jan 31, 2003 16:55

Its funny, but every lefty-hater who posts to Indymedia, whether it's about Shannon, the meaning of neutrality, Iraq, or indeed any other issue, invariably comes across as a dimwit.

Eoin Dubsky has posted a complex, coherent, logical and intelligent argument that at least deserves an equally intelligent reply from those who might not agreed with him.

Instead he gets some right-wing caveman who, in between grooming himself for ticks, lice etc, posts an utterly stupid reply which uses the dunces fall-back, the old "Irish neutrality in WWII = support for the holocaust".

But then, should we be surprised, anyone who takes Brendan O'Connor seriously on the Shannon issue will have a hard time following the simplest of arguements.

by Cowardly Comedian Fri Jan 31, 2003 17:05

No, joining America is a cowardly joke. Let's face it, the only reasons to side with America is because they are more powerful (in both military and economy) and hold more economic sway over us and we have more relations in America - it has nothing to do with moral ground whatsoever.

Mark my words, if George Bush was the leader of Yugoslavia or something, we'd be supporting sanctions against him. (As long as he hadn't made an alliance with NATO, of course)

by Mike Fri Jan 31, 2003 22:05 stepbystepfarm at shaysent dot com

Uh, last time I looked at a map Ireland did not share a land boundary with either the US or Iraq. So when considering the rights and responsibilities of neutrals you shouldn't be looking at the LAND war section but probably the rules which apply when ships of belligerents show up at a neutral port (I think the rules for airplanes is still following that for ships).

I think you will find that provided the ship is able to depart within the specified time limit it may not be interned. And even if the ship is too damaged to depart, the crew isn't also interned unless unable to leave by other means.

I think you will also find that neutrals ARE allowed to close their ports to the ships of belligerents (not allow them in) but read that section VERY carefully if you propose "non-violent" means. See I think you will find that a simple declaration "port closed" gives you no rights to intern if they come in anyway -- the neutral is required to have sufficient armed might present to enforce the closure.

by Myrna Gonazalez Sat Feb 01, 2003 00:21

Ireland is now, and always has been, as Devil Eire put it, on the side of the free democracies.

by Phuq Hedd Sat Feb 01, 2003 01:08

Mike, all the precedent that I can find indicates that air power is to be treated similarly to land power with regard to neutrality and belligerence.

ardozo Law Review Vol 20:459

The Hague conventions of 1907 did not deal with the question of aerial incursions, presumably because they followed the Wright brothers' demonstration by only four years. By 1939 there was general agreement that aerial incursions should be analogized to ground invasions. Air navigation being an imprecise science, nearly all of the neutrals suffered some invasion of their airspace. The long-distance error prize must be awarded to the Luftwaffe for twice bombing Dublin under the impression that they were over Belfast. [pp 465-466]

Interestingly, the article goes on to talk about how Switzerland challenged German planes several times during incursions resulting on losses on both sides and
the bombing of parts of Switzerland by the USAF. This bombing resulted in the Swiss adopting a beligerent "shoot first" policy, leaving them in the possession
of several hundred allied aircraft which entered Swiss airspace while damaged or fleeing from enemy attack.

The never ratified 1923 Hague documents show that thought at that time definitely supported Eoin's interpretation:

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918p/hagair.html
CHAPTER VI-Belligerent Duties Towards Neutral States and Neutral Duties Towards Belligerent States.

ARTICLE XXXIX
Belligerent aircraft are bound to respect the rights of neutral Powers and to abstain within the jurisdiction of a neutral State from the commission of any act which it is the duty of that State to prevent.

ARTICLE XL
Belligerent military aircraft are forbidden to enter the jurisdiction of a neutral State.

ARTICLE XLI
Aircraft on board vessels of war, including aircraft-carriers, shall be regarded as part of such vessels.

ARTICLE XLII
A neutral government must use the means at its disposal to prevent the entry within its jurisdiction of belligerent military aircraft and to compel them to alight if they have entered such jurisdiction.

A neutral government shall use the means at its disposal to intern any belligerent military aircraft which is within its jurisdiction after having alighted for any reason whatsoever, together with its crew and the passengers, if any.

ARTICLE XLIII
The personnel of a disabled belligerent military aircraft rescued outside neutral waters and brought into the jurisdiction of a neutral State by a neutral military aircraft and there landed shall be interned.

ARTICLE XLIV
The supply in any manner, directly or indirectly, by a neutral government to a belligerent Power of aircraft, parts of aircraft, or material, supplies or munitions required for aircraft is forbidden.

ARTICLE XLV
Subject to the provisions of Article XLVI, a neutral Power is not bound to prevent the export or transit on behalf of a belligerent of aircraft, parts of aircraft, or material, supplies or munitions for aircraft.

ARTICLE XLVI
A neutral government is bound to use the means at its disposal:

1) to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of an aircraft in a condition to make a hostile attack against a belligerent Power, or carrying or accompanied by appliances or materials the mounting or utilisation of which would enable it to make a hostile attack, if there is reason to believe that such aircraft is destined for use against a belligerent Power.

2) to prevent the departure of an aircraft the crew of which includes any member of the combatant forces of a belligerent Power.

3) to prevent work upon an aircraft designed to prepare it to depart in contravention of the purpose of this article.

On the departure by air of any aircraft despatched by persons or companies in neutral jurisdiction to the order of a belligerent Power, the neutral government must prescribe for such aircraft a route avoiding the neighbourhood of the military operations of the opposing belligerent, and must exact whatever guarantees may be required to ensure that the aircraft follows the route prescribed.

ARTICLE XLVII
A neutral State is bound to take such steps as the means at its disposal permit to prevent within its jurisdiction aerial observation of the movements, operations or defences of one belligerent, with the intention of informing the other belligerent.

This provision applies equally to a belligerent military aircraft on board a vessel of war.

by Stuart Sat Feb 01, 2003 04:28

When the Hague agreements were written 'war' I think, had to be declared state existing between two or more nation states, internal conflicts and police actions were not envisaged. The powers who wanted the hague rules were simply laying the ground rules for the wars they knew enevitably would come.

The U.S has not declared war on Iraq, the chartered use of 'civilian' planes may also allow them to slip out from the provisions on military aircraft.

Perhaps a serious effort to up-date and clearly define Irelands position on neutrality is needed to cover undeclared wars and 'enforcements' of resolutions? Perhaps those few Politicians who havent sold out yet could bring this up. After all ultimately it is the entire voting public through Pleblicite who decide upon the shape of the constitution.

by iosaf (jedi of the constitutions) Sat Feb 01, 2003 12:35 barcelona.--(catalonia) which has not attended this year the celebration in Madrid of the Spanish constitution.

Between 1928 and 1945
only Sweden UK Ireland and Switzerland did not have a dictator.
I count Quisling as a dictator.

Ireland had an emergency government.
UK had a national government.
Sweden had normal government with emergency powers.
Switzerland had normal government with emergency powers.

What do you think about DeValera?

Ireland must answer this question as all those who presently live in Spain must answer the question "who or what was Franco?".

DeValera still casts a shadow.
Till we have given our country a new constitution, we must ask
"Who or What was DeValera?"

then maybe we will better understand the little rascals of today, and the supreme little rascal Charles J. Haughey.

A short read of Europe´s constitutions between 1938 and 1949 will show three distinct types.
DeValera´s bunreacht belongs most definitely to one type, and it is not the tradition of "world free democracy".
Has anyone read the British Constitution?
no.
Our "British section" of the 5th international hasn´t finished writing it yet.