Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 471

Untitled
The whole idea of Chapter VII is to be explicit. When it's not specifically said "acting under ..." then it's not a chapter VII decision. Chapter VII decisions are enforceable and according to most of the international community are the only ones with actual binding force. Furthermore, Resolutions under Chapter VII must "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" before it invokes its decision making power under Articles 41 or 42. Since 471 contains no determination of the sort, it cannot be under Chapter VII and is therefore not binding. thanks. Amoruso 23:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * syrian golan heights are in syria, these golan heights aren't called this way.
 * you can quote the resolution in brackets but if not, one can't insert the terms as in encyclopdic opinion.

Difference between "mandate to enforce by arms" being "not binding under international law"
Your notes very accurately show how chapter VII needs to be invoked in order to issue a mandate to enforce SC decisions. It is very far removed from claiming that without chapter VII, they are considered "non binding under international law". They most certainly are. There is an editor who routinely expounds on these issues, I will try to track him/her down for additional comment.

The resolution explicitly states that Israel is the "occupying Power", and goes on to say "Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967". IE Golan is Syrian. That he Golan is Syrian is the official position of the UN and always has been. --AladdinSE 22:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * :the sources repeats the word "binding" 10 times. If this accurately shows something completely different, then it's speaking in code. Amoruso 22:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They're not called Syrian Golan Heights. In fact, syrian golan heights do exist and they're a region in syria today, a continuation of these golan heights under Israel. So it's confusing and misleading too for the reader. Not even the U.N says in the resolution "syrian golan heights". btw, occupying power simply means that Israel occupied the place as in conquered the place and is now there. It perhaps has connoations but it's a neutral term, definitely not designating the region as syrian or changing its common known name - see name conventions on wikipedia.Amoruso 22:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I finally found the material, in another article, that differentiates the findings of fact from recommendations and enforcement measures when referring to what is binding. Your own sources make the distinction. Indeed, the ICJ opinion, also found in the other article, roundly rejects your reasoning. This is the highest and most prestigious body of jurisprudence in the world talking.--AladdinSE 08:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Its authority isn't even recognized by much of the world. Jayjg (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)