Whatevr happened to the 32 county sovereignty?

quirk.

Sleepy wrote:

Just tell me these guys haven't got the wherewithall for another Omagh.

Omagh was a terrible tragedy and hopefully something like this will never happen again. However the 32CSM as a political organisation had nothing to do with it.

Fratton Fred

quirk. wrote:

Depends what you aim to achieve. If you seek to remove the British from Ireland then participation in constitutional politics is certainly not the way forward. Republicans cannot accept the GFA within it's framework the British presence can legitimately become permanent.

so you seek to impose your will on the majority by any means necessary.

that makes you better than Imperial Britain how exactly?

quirk.

Fratton Fred wrote:

so you seek to impose your will on the majority by any means necessary.

that makes you better than Imperial Britain how exactly?

The majority of people want to see a united and independent Ireland. And who ever mentioned imposing our will by any means necessary?

oscarBravo

The majority of people voted for the GFA.

Jackie laughlin

What does it mean to oppose the "normalisation process" in N.I?

What alternative is there to calling the police when, say, your car is stolen?

Do these "republicans" steer clear of all government, e.g. company and land registration, use of the courts, payment of taxes, acceptance of welfare, use of the NHS etc?

Assuming that they accept the need for government, what exactly do they recognise?

Colonel Sanders

oscarBravo wrote:

The majority of people voted for the GFA.

Exactly, and you state the 32CSM want to destroy this agreement.

Also claiming 32CSM have nothing to do with the RIRA is pure fantasy. I checked their website and in their 'Photo Gallery' are many photos glorifying RIRA. Are we supposed to believe that the 2 organisations are in NO WAY linked? You can tell us that til the cows come home but I reckon no one with a brain cell in their head will believe you.

oscarBravo

quirk. wrote:

Omagh was a terrible tragedy...

I think the phrase "disgusting atrocity" is a more appropriate description. I haven't heard a similar phrase from too many in the so-called Republican movement.

quirk.

oscarBravo wrote:

The majority of people voted for the GFA.

They were not given the choice of a united Ireland. Also as the GFA was sold to one side as ensuring the union and to the other as a stepping stone to a UI, one side was therefore lied to.

quirk.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

What does it mean to oppose the "normalisation process" in N.I?

What alternative is there to calling the police when, say, your car is stolen?

Do these "republicans" steer clear of all government, e.g. company and land registration, use of the courts, payment of taxes, acceptance of welfare, use of the NHS etc?

Assuming that they accept the need for government, what exactly do they recognise?

See our documents on the policing issue No Other Law and The Necessity of Policing & The Necessity for Constitutional Change

quirk.

Colonel Sanders wrote:

Exactly, and you state the 32CSM want to destroy this agreement.

Yes

Colonel Sanders wrote:

Also claiming 32CSM have nothing to do with the RIRA is pure fantasy. I checked their website and in their 'Photo Gallery' are many photos glorifying RIRA. Are we supposed to believe that the 2 organisations are in NO WAY linked? You can tell us that til the cows come home but I reckon no one with a brain cell in their head will believe you.

Well they are not linked and they are certainly not the same organisation. Both have the same goals and we support the IRA's right to engage in armed struggle. Thats as far as it goes.

quirk.

oscarBravo wrote:

I think the phrase "disgusting atrocity" is a more appropriate description. I haven't heard a similar phrase from too many in the so-called Republican movement.

Yes it was and it was also disgusting how British and free state intelligence knew about it before hand and let it happen anyway.But I dont hear too many people condemning that.

flogen

quirk. wrote:

They were not given the choice of a united Ireland. Also as the GFA was sold to one side as ensuring the union and to the other as a stepping stone to a UI, one side was therefore lied to.

That's not exactly true. People in the Republic of Ireland were asked if they wanted to accept the GFA and give up their claim on the 6 counties - 94% of them said yes. Had they wanted to claim a United Ireland as the 32CSM does they would have looked to continue the claim on the 6 counties instead.

I'd like to add to the point of people here referring to themselves as the sole republicans on this island - you're not.
If you actually understand the meaning of a republican you'd realise that it is someone who is a citizen or supporter of a Republican democratic model, as opposed to a Monarchy, dictatorship etc.

Whether it's the exact type of republic you'd like to see you're only displaying ignorance to refer to the 26 counties of this island as the "free state" - the same kind of ignorance many Unionists in NI show. Ireland is nationally and internationally recognised as a Republic, there's no arguing with that fact.

quirk.

flogen wrote:

That's not exactly true. People in the Republic of Ireland were asked if they wanted to accept the GFA and give up their claim on the 6 counties - 94% of them said yes. Had they wanted a United Ireland they would have look to continue their claim on the 6 counties.

The people were not given a choice of a united Ireland and you know that.

flogen wrote:

I'd like to add to the point of people here referring to themselves as the sole republicans on this island - you're not.
If you actually understand the meaning of a republican you'd realise that it is someone who is a citizen or supporter of a Republican democratic model, as opposed to a Monarchy, dictatorship etc.

I never once said that the 32CSM were the only republicans on this island. I do understand the meaning of republican and also that an Irish republican is someone who wants to see a republic consisting of the entire 32 counties of Ireland. Ireland does not only consist of the 26 counties you know. Our problem with others (not everyone) who claim to be republicans is that their stated political position of being Irish republicans does not correspond to this position set against their political actions. We have sought to engage with other in an attempt to get them to address these fundamental contradictions through our document Irish Democracy - A framework for Unity.

Wikipedia defines Irish Republicanism as

an ideology based on the Irish nationalist belief that all of Ireland should be a single independent republic, whether as a unitary state, a federal state or as a confederal arrangement.

quirk.

flogen wrote:

Had they wanted to claim a United Ireland as the 32CSM does they would have looked to continue the claim on the 6 counties instead.

A survey has revealed almost four out of five voters want to see the country as one, with almost a quarter (22%) believing that achieving a united Ireland should be the Government’s first priority.

http://breaking.tcm.ie/2006/04/02/story252182.html

A 1999 survey found 86% of Irish voters still wanted to unite the island - despite a massive "Yes" vote in the May 1998 referendum approving the Good Friday agreement, which required the republic to renounce its constitutional claim on the north.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,540092,00.html

A majority of voters in the Republic believe the IRA ceasefire is permanent, but more than a third suspect the IRA has not given up violence for good. More than four-fifths of those polled would like to see a united Ireland in the future, with only 13 percent having no interest in unity. 28 percent of those who favored unity would like to see it occur in the next 12 months

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5089/is_199410/ai_n18501101

Colonel Sanders

quirk. wrote:

Well they are not linked and they are certainly not the same organisation. Both have the same goals and we support the IRA's right to engage in armed struggle. Thats as far as it goes.

no offence but I don't believe you.

Did Francie Mackey not give the graveside oration at the funeral of the first RIRA 'martyr', Ronan Mac Lochlainn? I find it hard to believe this would happen had the 2 organisations not been linked.

Really reminds me of all the times when SF denied having any link whatsoever to the Provisional IRA.

flogen

quirk. wrote:

The people were not given a choice of a united Ireland and you know that.

Had there been a on a straight vote on a United Ireland it would have passed in the 26 counties and failed in the 6 counties. You know that.

I never once said that the 32CSM were the only republicans on this island. I do understand the meaning of republican and also that an Irish republican is someone who wants to see a republic consisting of the entire 32 counties of Ireland.

Wrong - an Irish republican is an Irish person who believes that a Republic is the best mode of Government for the people.

There are Irish republicans who believe the 32 counties should be a united nation but they are not indicative of the term 'republican' or 'irish republican' despite the fact that they are both of these things.

Ireland does not only consist of the 26 counties you know.

The island of Ireland does not, no. The nation of Ireland, according to our own constitution, the EU, the UN and the entire world does, however.

Our problem with others (not everyone) who claim to be republicans is that their stated political position of being Irish republicans does not correspond to this position set against their political actions.

Your problem is based on a misconception about what an Irish Republican is. It has no real connection to all-island unity - that is something that could be the wish of a feudalist, a monarchist, a totalitarianist, a communist (and so on). It just so happens that those who support Irish unity tend to simultaneously support the Republican form of Government.

Wikipedia defines Irish Republicanism as

You'll notice that I didn't reference Wikipedia in my definition of a republican because I do not believe it to be infallible. In this case I think that belief is justified.

A survey has revealed almost four out of five voters want to see the country as one, with almost a quarter (22%) believing that achieving a united Ireland should be the Government’s first priority.

Firstly, let's take the spin off that second figure - 78% of people don't think Irish unity should be a top priority for Government.

Secondly, I don't doubt that people in Ireland support an all-island state, nor am I surprised that British people feel similar. The problem is the people who will make the decision are not based in Ireland or England, they're based in Northern Ireland.

I accept that you believe the NI state to be nothing but a gerrymandered slice of a population manufactured to appease a minority and I happen to agree with you. The difference is I think the situation has progressed past simply re-writing history, as unfortunate as it is.

What supporters of a United Ireland now need to do is accept NI, as undemocratic as its foundations may be, seek to find out why Unionists are unionists and try to find ways of proving their fears and oppositions to be unfounded. I think those looking to remind them of their minority status and force them into a country they do not support only encourage their opposition to unity with the rest of the island.

quirk.

Had there been a on a straight vote on a United Ireland it would have passed in the 26 counties and failed in the 6 counties. You know that.

Yes I do. One of the problems with Sinn Fein's acceptance of the GFA is that as what you have stated looks likely to remain so the British presence can now become legitimately permanent under the terms of the GFA.

Wrong - an Irish republican is an Irish person who believes that a Republic is the best mode of Government for the people.

There are Irish republicans who believe the 32 counties should be a united nation but they are not indicative of the term 'republican' or 'irish republican' despite the fact that they are both of these things.

Ireland consists of 32 counties and so an Irish republican is someone who want to see a republic encompassing those 32 counties. I think all the political parties and the majority of the people would accept this definition.

As the British illegally occupy the 6 counties there removal must be an aim of Irish republicans as a first step in establishing an Irish Republic.

Your problem is based on a misconception about what an Irish Republican is. It has no real connection to all-island unity - that is something that could be the wish of a feudalist, a monarchist, a totalitarianist, a communist (and so on). It just so happens that those who support Irish unity tend to simultaneously support the Republican form of Government.

Our problem is not based on a misconception and these other Parties/individuals tend to have the same conception of republicanism as ourselves. Our problem is that their stated posistion (Irish republican - call it seperatist if you please) does not correspond to their political actions.

Firstly, let's take the spin off that second figure - 78% of people don't think Irish unity should be a top priority for Government.

But that wasn't the point I was making. I was just giving a survey to back up my claim that the majority would like to have a united Ireland.

What supporters of a United Ireland now need to do is accept NI, as undemocratic as its foundations may be, seek to find out why Unionists are unionists and try to find ways of proving their fears and oppositions to be unfounded. I think those looking to remind them of their minority status and force them into a country they do not support only encourage their opposition to unity with the rest of the island.

So the problem is the unionist now and not the British? As for forcing them into a country they don't support do you not have a problem with partition being forced on the majority of the people.

The 32CSM have been engaging with Unionists and we have put it too them that given the probability of a United Ireland at some time in the future would it not be politically expedient for them to plan for such an outcome. You see we seek for them to enter into it on shared terms rather than force them as you seem to think.

flogen

quirk. wrote:

Yes I do. One of the problems with Sinn Fein's acceptance of the GFA is that as what you have stated looks likely to remain so the British presence can now become legitimately permanent under the terms of the GFA.

I see no problem with a United Ireland only coming about through consent. If Republicanism and an all-island political identity is as good as many believe it is then it should be a far easier way to do it than threatening at gun point or denying that the past happened.

Ireland consists of 32 counties and so an Irish republican is someone who want to see a republic encompassing those 32 counties. I think all the political parties and the majority of the people would accept this definition.

Again, the island of Ireland consists of 32 counties, not the internationally recognised Republican state.
And again, Republican ideals are completely independent of theories on national unity (or otherwise).
I'm not sure what all the political parties might accept as the definition of 'Irish Republican' but the reality is that an Irish Republican only differs from a German Republican by his citizenship. It is true that many parties and organisations, including the one you advocate, have tried to turn the term 'Irish Republican' into a shorthand for supporters of Irish unity but that doesn't make it the reality.

Let me put this very hypothetical scenario to you - imagine if there was a referendum across the UK tomorrow which asked citizens to vote on the disestablishment of their monarchy in favour of a republic. The referendum is passed with 100% support from every citizen of the UK, including those in NI.

So everyone in Northern Ireland is a republican and they're Irish too. They're Irish Republicans. But the majority of them still don't support Irish unity.

My point (in case it's not obvious)? You can be an Irish republican and not support Irish unity - you and the 32CSM can't even begin to suggest otherwise because Republicanism doesn't begin and end on your terms.

As the British illegally occupy the 6 counties there removal must be an aim of Irish republicans as a first step in establishing an Irish Republic.

There is an Irish Republic, I live in it. I'm an Irish Republican too and I'd also love to see a united Ireland but only a viable one and one built on total consent, not the 50% +1 plan of some.

Our problem is not based on a misconception and these other Parties/individuals tend to have the same conception of republicanism as ourselves. Our problem is that their stated posistion (Irish republican - call it seperatist if you please) does not correspond to their political actions.

Fianna Fáil, for example, refer to themselves as The Republican Party - I've not yet seen them try and replace our Republican democracy with something else so I'm happy enough that their political actions correspond with their stated position.

But that wasn't the point I was making. I was just giving a survey to back up my claim that the majority would like to have a united Ireland.

I never said the majority of people in Ireland wouldn't want a United Ireland, I said their opinions are irrelevant as they don't hold the balance.

So the problem is the unionist now and not the British?

Problem? I wouldn't refer to unionists as a problem.

As for forcing them into a country they don't support do you not have a problem with partition being forced on the majority of the people.

I've already stated my opposition to the gerrymandering which occoured in Ireland in the 1920s but a wrong can't be solved by another wrong. It's about time that people accepted (and most do, I should add) that while the partitioning of this island was illegal it is a reality that cannot be wiped from history now.

The 32CSM have been engaging with Unionists and we have put it too them that given the probability of a United Ireland at some time in the future would it not be politically expedient for them to plan for such an outcome. You see we seek for them to enter into it on shared terms rather than force them as you seem to think.

I have to laugh at what you call engagement - it seems to consist of you telling Unionists that a United Ireland is coming and they'd better deal with it.

It's the same level of engagement shown between the USA and Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion - we're coming, get ready.

I hate to advise a group that should have been thinking about this long ago, but I would suggest a programme of allaying Unionist fears while simultaneously detailing the benefits that would come their way when playing on an all-island basis.
For example it could be pointed out that being a voice of 1m amongst 6m is far better than being a voice of 1m amongst 60m. The economic benefits (including a lower corporate tax rate which all parties in Northern Ireland want) speak for themselves.

Fratton Fred

quirk. wrote:

Yes it was and it was also disgusting how British and free state intelligence knew about it before hand and let it happen anyway.But I dont hear too many people condemning that.

You do of course have something that backs up your claim.

oscarBravo

quirk. wrote:

As the British illegally occupy the 6 counties...

What law are they breaking?

quirk. wrote:

As for forcing them into a country they don't support do you not have a problem with partition being forced on the majority of the people.

The majority of people voted to accept partition when it was put to them in a referendum.

quirk.

oscarBravo wrote:

What law are they breaking?

International law.

oscarBravo wrote:

The majority of people voted to accept partition when it was put to them in a referendum.

They were not given the choice of a united Ireland. Partition remained no matter what way anyone voted.

quirk.

Fratton Fred wrote:

You do of course have something that backs up your claim.

Yeah Nuala O'Loans report.

Also there was 2 good articles relating to this in the buisness post this past Sunday

Omagh bomb trial described as a ‘farce’ by victim’s husband and Omagh: the questions that still need answering

quirk.

quirk. wrote:

They were not given the choice of a united Ireland. Partition remained no matter what way anyone voted.

I see...
And what did you think of the overwheming 90% + vote in favour of ammending the constitution to drop its claim on the 6 counties and recognising that consent from the people of the 6 countieswould be needed for a united Ireland.
That was democratically passed.
Do you believe in democracy?

quirk.

Tristrame wrote:

I see...
And what did you think of the overwheming 90% + vote in favour of ammending the constitution to drop its claim on the 6 counties and recognising that consent from the people of the 6 countieswould be needed for a united Ireland.
That was democratically passed.
Do you believe in democracy?

The referendums were illegal and we have laid out our reasons for believing this in the submission we made to the United Nations. Below is a small bit from the submission but it can be read in full here: http://32csm.org/submit.htm

Political View

The 32 County Sovereignty Committee stands to uphold Ireland's Declaration of Independence as declared by Dail Eireann on January 21st 1919.

We reject Britain's right to occupy any part of our country and to involve itself in any make, shape or form in the affairs of the Irish nation.
Down through the years Britain has denied the right of the Irish people to national sovereignty and has imposed partition by force of arms.

Whenever the Irish people have moved to express their right to sovereignty, Britain has moved to oppose that right and sought to perpetuate partition.

The pretext for partition - the wishes of a national minority to maintain British rule - holds no validity against the expressed wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people.

Partition perpetuates the British Government's denial of the Irish peoples right to self-determination. It perpetuates the cycle of oppression/domination/resistance/oppression.

In the words of the late Sean McBride, winner of the Nobel and Lenin Peace Prizes:

"Irelands right to sovereignty, independence and unity are inalienable and indefeasible. It is for the Irish people as a whole to determine the future status of Ireland. Neither Britain nor a small minority selected by Britain has any right to partition the ancient island of Ireland, nor to determine its future as a sovereign nation."


Political/Historical Summary

From the above historical analysis we conclude:

1. The acceptance of the partition acts whether under duress or free choice can have no legal standing.

2. The Declaration of Independence 1919 was issued by Dail Eireann as the result of the Authority of the people of Ireland in the 1918 election. Therefore any fundamental change in that position could only be brought about by going back to the Irish people.
Therefore we challenge the authority of the Dail to accept a motion before it usurping the sovereign decision of the people, i.e. The Treaty of 1921. for the following reasons:

(a) Having declared the sovereign position of the people lawful, it was not within their remit to disestablish the sovereignty of the people - a fact clearly understood in their own declaration of Independence.

(b) More importantly, the members of the Dail went before the people with the specific aim of upholding the will of the people. Therefore, it defies belief that a motion to accept a treaty fostered upon the Dail at the point of a gun by a foreign parliament would be anything other than null and void.

3. The Treaty foisted upon the Irish people also includes a British insistence that a written constitution be brought into being but not put before the people. At this stage the Dail could no longer consider itself a sovereign Parliament as it was now operating under a British Act of Parliament.

4. The relevance of what way the vote went to accept the Treaty is the main flaw in the argument. That the Treaty was won by a majority of seven votes is irrelevant. The partitioned Dail had no authority to disenfranchise a section of the population into a partitioned state.

5. Authority to put before Dail Eireann the dictates of foreign power in the first instance was not within the remit of the Dail because this was not a Treaty being signed by two Governments who respected each other's sovereignty. The British had in 1920 challenged the will of the Irish people at the ballot box with introduction of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 #[6] - an update of the Act of Union #[7] However without granting any credence to the Act of Union 1800, the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was without doubt a clear breach of international law and of the British Government’s own previous acceptance that they would acquiesce to the will of the people.

6. The British Parliament up to the present day has not yet being fully brought to account in a direct legal challenge as to what authority she has to set up a state in Ireland for her colonial descendants by the International Community bearing in mind the great loss of life and human suffering that has stemmed from this denial.

7. The statement by Peter Brooke, the then British Secretary for State for Northern Ireland on November 9 1989 to the effect that Britain has no selfish or economic reason to remain in Ireland is possibly the clearest intention as to what her real intent was, for she forgot to mention that she had given a legal guarantee that the majority within the artificial state would now be her legal excuse to remain in Ireland. The British avoid recognising that Ireland has the right to sovereignty in the first instance.

8. The granting of consent to the unionist is in direct transgression to the sovereignty position. We ordain that consent to a minority to opt out within the sovereignty of a nation can only be granted by a sovereign decision of the people as otherwise it grants sections of the people the right to transgress their own sovereignty.

Our Rights in International Law

We claim that Ireland's right to sovereignty, independence and unity - the right of the Irish people, as a whole, to self-determination - is supported by universally recognised principles of international law.

In particular, the right to self determination is enshrined in the two United Nations' Covenants of 1966 - The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and The International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights.

Article 1 of each Covenant states:

"1. All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtues of
that right they determine their economic, social and cultural development."
The landmark Declaration on Principles of International law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations declares:
"..all people have the right freely to determine, without external
influence, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development and every state has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter."

Britain's continued occupation and partition of our country contravenes these Covenants.
The repression and partition of Ireland also contravenes The United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. (Adopted by the UN General Assembly on 14th December 1960).

Article 4 states:

"All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected".

Article 6 states:

"Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the charter of the United Nations."

In an attempt to modernise partition, the London and Dublin Governments are proposing to hold joint referenda on both sides of the Irish border. We reject the legitimacy of these referenda. We hold that Britain has no right to determine the future of Ireland as a sovereign nation.

oscarBravo

quirk. wrote:

International law.

Not good enough by a country mile. What law, specifically? What tenets or articles of what laws are being broken?

Lol
Good luck with that submission Quirk..

quirk.

oscarBravo wrote:

Not good enough by a country mile. What law, specifically? What tenets or articles of what laws are being broken?

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. GA Res. 2200A(XXI), Dec 16th 1966. 21.GAOR Supp. (No 16) at 52, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966). 999 U.N. -S.171 entered into force March 23, 1976. ) Part.1 Art,1(1).

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

The International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. GA Res. 2200A (XXI). Dec 16th 1966. Dec 16th 1966. 21 GAOR Supp. (No.16) at 49, U/N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 U.N.T.:S.3. entered into force on 3rd of January 1976. Part.1. Art.1. Art 1 (1).

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

The United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. (Adopted by the UN General Assembly on 14th December 1960). GA Res. 1514/XV, Dec 14th, 1960. Article 4 and Article 6.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning
Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.G.A. Res. 2625, 25 UN GAOR Supp. No. 28 at 121, UN doc. A/8082 (1970)

DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND COOPERATION AMONG STATES
in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations
Resolution 2625 (XXV)


The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 1815 (XVII) of 18 December 1962, 1966 (XVIII) of 16 December 1963, 2103 (XX) of 20 December 1965, 2181 (XXI) of 12 December 1966, 2327 (XXII) of 18 December 1967, 2463 (XVIII) of 20 December 1968 and 2533 (XXIV) of 8 December 1969, in which it affirmed the importance of the progressive development and codification of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States,

Having considered the report of the Special Committee on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, which met in Geneva from 31 March to 1 May 1970,

Emphasizing the paramount importance of the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security and for the development of friendly relations and co-operation among States,

Deeply convinced that the adoption of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nations would contribute to the strengthening of world peace and constitute a landmark in the development of international law and of relations among States, in promoting the rule of law among nations and particularly the universal application of the principles embodied in the Charter,

Considering the desirability of the wide dissemination of the text of the Declaration,

1. Approves the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the text of which is annexed to the present resolution;

2. Expresses its appreciation to the Special Committee on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States for its work resulting in the elaboration of the Declaration;

3. Recommends that all efforts be made so that the Declaration becomes generally known.

1883rd plenary meeting, 24 October 1970.



PREAMBLE
The General Assembly,

Reaffirming in the terms of the Charter of the United Nations that the maintenance of international peace and security and the development of friendly relations and cooperation between nations are among the fundamental purposes of the United Nations,

Recalling that the peoples of the United Nations are determined to practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours,

Bearing in mind the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or die levels of their development,

Bearing in mind also the paramount importance of the Charter of the United Nations in die promotion of the rule of law among nations,

Considering that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfilment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States, in accordance with the Charter, is of the greatest importance for the maintenance of international peace and security and for the implementation of the other purposes of the United Nations,

Noting that the great political, economic and social changes and scientific progress which have taken place in the world since the adoption of the Charter give increased importance to these principles and to the need for their more effective application in die conduct of States wherever carried on,

Recalling the established principle that outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means, and mindful of die fact that consideration is being given in the United Nations to the question of establishing other appropriate provisions similarly inspired,

Convinced that the strict observance by States of the obligation not to intervene in the affairs of any other State is an essential condition to ensure that nations live together in peace with one another, since the practice of any form of intervention not only violates the spirit and letter of the Charter, but also leads to the creation of situations which threaten international peace and security,

Recalling the duty of States to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State,

Considering it essential that all States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,

Considering it equally essential that all States shah settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter,

Reaffirming, in accordance with the Charter, the basic importance of sovereign equality and stressing that the purposes of die United Nations can be implemented only if States enjoy sovereign equality and comply fully with the requirements of this principle in their international relations,

Convinced that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a major obstacle to die .promotion of international peace and security,

Convinced that the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples constitutes a significant contribution to

contemporary international law, and that its effective application is of paramount importance for the promotion of friendly relations among States, based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality,

Convinced in consequence that any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a State or country or at its political independence is incompatible with die purposes and principles of the Charter,

Considering the provisions of die Charter as a whole and taking into account the role of relevant resolutions adopted by die competent organs of the United Nations relating to the content of the principles,

Considering that the progressive development and codification of the following principles:

(a) The principle that States shah refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,

(b) The principle that States shall settle their International disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered,

(c) The duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter,

(d) The duty of States to co-operate with one another in accordance with the Charter,

(e) The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,

(f) The principle of sovereign equality of States,

(g) The principle that States shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the Charter,

so as to secure their more effective application within the international community, would promote the realization of the purposes of the United Nations,

Having considered the principles of international law relating to friendly relations and co-operation among States,


1. Solemnly proclaims the following principles:
The principle that States shah refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations

Every State has die duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international dis-putes, including territorial disputes and problems conc erning frontiers of States.

Every State likewise has die duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lins of demarcation, such as armistice fines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shah be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerna with regard to the status and effects of such Unes under their special régimes or as affecting their temporary character.

States have a duty to refrain from acts of reprisai involving the use of force.

Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to in the elaboration of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence.

Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands, including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.

Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in arts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such arts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.

The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as affecting:

(a) Provisions of the Charter or any international agreement prior to the Charter régime and valid under international law; or

(b) The powers of the Security Council under the (starter.

All States shall pursue in good faith negotiations for the early conclusion of a universal treaty on general and corn-plate disarmament under effective international control and strive to adopt appropriate measures to reduce international tensions and strengthen confidence among States.

All States shall comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rides of international law with respect to the maintenance of international pence and security, and shall endeavour to make die United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective.

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as enlarging or diminishing in any way the scope of the pro-visions of the Charter concerning cases in which the use of force is lawful.


The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered

Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.

States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, media-don, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to reglonal sondes or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In se:king such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumatances and nature of the dispute.

The parties to a dispute have die duty, in the event of biffure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful meus, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

States parties to an international dispute, as well as other States, shall refrain from any action which may aggravate the situation so as to endanger the maintenance of inter-national peace and security, and shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

International disputes shall be settled on the basis of the sovereign equality of States and in accordance with the principle of free choice of means. Recouru to, or acceptance of, a settlement procedure freely agreed to by States with regard to existing or future disputes to which they are parties shall not be regarded as incompatible with sovereign equality.

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs prejudices or derogates from die applicable provisions of the Charter, in particular those relating to the pacific settlement of international disputes.


The principle concerning the duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.

No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind. Also, no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the régime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State.

The use of force to deprive peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention.

Every State has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another State.

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall he construed as affecting the relevant provisions of the Charter relating to the maintenance of international peace and security.


The duty of States to co-operate with one another in accordance with the Charter

States have the duty to co-operate with one another, irrespective of die differences in their political, economic and social systems, in the various spheres of international relations, in order to maintain international peace and security and to promote international economic stability and progress, the general welfare of nations and international co-operation free from discrimination based on such differences.

To this end:

(a) States shall co-operate with other States in the maintenance of international peace and security;

(b) States shall co-operate in the promotion of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, and in the elimination of all forma of racial discrimination and all forma of religious intolerance;

(c) States shall conduct their international relations in the economic, social, cultural, technical and trade fields in accordance with the principles of sovereign equality and non-intervention;

(d) States Members of the United Nations have the duty to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the United Nations in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter.

States should co-operate in the economic, social and cultural fields as well as in the field of science and technology and for the promotion of international cultural and educational progress. States should co-operate in die promotion of economic growth throughout the world, especially that of die developing countries.


The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples

By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle, in order:

(a) To promote friendly relations and co-operation among States; and

(b) To bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned;

and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to Mien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote through joint and separate action universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Charter.

The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.

Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.

The territory of a colony or other Non-Self-Governing Territory bas, under die Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; and such separate and distinct statue under the Charter shall exist until die people of the colony or Non-Self-Governing Territory have exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and principles.

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shah be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as

described above and thus possessed of a government representing die whole people belonging to the territory without distinction u to race, creed or colour.

Every State shah refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other State or country.


The principle of sovereign equality of States

All States enjoy sovereign equality. They have equal rights and duties and are equal members of the international community, notwithstanding differences et an economic, social, political or other nature.

In particular, sovereign equality includes the following elements:

(a) States are juridically equal;

(b) Bach State enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty;

(c) Each State bas the duty to respect die personality of other States;

(d) The territorial integrity and political independence of the State are inviolable;

(e) Each State has the right freely to choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems;

(f) Bach State has die duty to comply fully and in good faith with its international obligations and to live in peace with other States.


The principle that States shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the Charter

Every State has the duty to fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by it in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Every State has the duty to fulfil in good faith its obligations under the generally recognized principles and rides of international law.

Every State has the duty to fulfil in good faith its obligations under international agreements valid under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law.

Where obligations arising under international agreements are in conflict with the obligations of Members of the United Nations under the Charter of the United Nations, the obligations under the Charter shall prevail.



GENERAL PART
2. Declares that:

In their interpretation and application the above principles are interrelated and each principle should be construed in the context of the other principles.

Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed as prejudicing in any manner the provisions of the Charter or the rights and duties of Member States under the Charter or the rights of peoples under die Charter, taking into account the elaboration of these rights in this Declaration.


3. Declares further that:

The principles of the Charter which are embodied in Ibis Declaration constitute basic principles of international law, and consequently appeals to all States to be guided by these principles in their international conduct and to develop their mutual rela

As those articles were created after the creation of the ROI and NI -can you point out where they say they are to be or can be applied retrospectively?

flogen

Can international law be applied retroactively?

quirk.

I have no link but I will try to find one. As far as I am aware it can be applied and this is what the International lawers at the UN advised us.