He said,"[i]f the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.".
If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security, he said.
In other words: One reason was that Iraq was behind“anti-United States terrorism,” and another was that Al Qaeda was“known to be in Iraq,” but there were five reasons in total that referred to the 9/11 event- and yet this resolution had to do with Iraq, not with 9/11.
In other words: One reason was that Iraq was behind«anti-United States terrorism», and another was that al-Qaeda was«known to be in Iraq», but there were five reasons in total that referred to the 9/11 event- and yet this resolution had to do with Iraq, not with 9/11.
Affirms that paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 apply only with respect to the situation in the DPRK and shall not affect the rights, obligations, or responsibilities of Member States under international law, including any rights or obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, with respect to any other situation and underscores in particular that this resolution shall not be considered as establishing customary international law;
English
中文
عربى
Български
বাংলা
Český
Dansk
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Suomi
Français
עִברִית
हिंदी
Hrvatski
Magyar
Bahasa indonesia
Italiano
Қазақ
한국어
മലയാളം
मराठी
Bahasa malay
Nederlands
Norsk
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Slovenský
Slovenski
Српски
Svenska
தமிழ்
తెలుగు
ไทย
Tagalog
Turkce
Українська
اردو
Tiếng việt