Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
I just don't see how that is relevant.
By application of that clause, a paper cut would be illegal. A .50 cal weapon is most certainly well within the spirit of the agreement, just like 5.56m 7.62, 20mm HE, 105 APDS, or even a tac nuke.
|
My statement was incomplete but I had no time this early morning (my morning
) to correct it.
That makes it relevant as a preliminary step. However, as in every international treaty/agreement, the application depends on pre-war agreement or winner application.
As such the Ottawa treaty (International Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty) resulted in the fact that anti-personnal mines are considered by many as falling under that article (Countries such as USA, Russia, China, Israel, Egypt... didn't sign the treaty). The signing countries (among which you find Australia) ban themselves from using it and, in the eventuality of a war that they win, grant themselves the right to prosecute anyone for using them.
The best exemple was that of Nuremberg. As Nimitz pointed out that the US had carried an unrestricted submarine warfare of their own, Dönitz was not condemned on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare. And that despite the fact that it was recognized as a crime by the La Haye treaty of 1907.
As an historian, I do condemn US attitude. As a man I'm outraged by the level of hypocrisis that you find there. If I had live then, I would have adopted both the position of US and Nimitz. Everything is a matter of time and timing with the thing always going down to politics.
As a matter of fact, Leg you are right because no treaty has ban the use of .50 so far (I don't know if some countries have done it individually). That doesn't make it a false rumor as well as it gives you the legal ground to go to court. However, I'm sure that those who made (or some of those reading) the treaty might have had paper sheets in mind as well.
(This was what I wanted to point out, sorry if the lack of time had made me miss the point).