NATO and UN Membership Incompatible – Lawyer

From his short Bio on New Eastern Outlook, “Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto.” Lawyers, like them, love them, or not, tend to earn their living by solving legal cases, in or out of court. They do that by examining and prosecuting the facts – often as presented in the documents and contracts governing a situation – before a court or some other form of arbitration. So when a lawyer says something, scheisters excepted, it is usually after careful study of the facts. And when the facts are presented in written and binding form as in some sort of contract, agreement or treaty, there is often not much to argue about.

In the article shared below, written by Christopher Black, he makes a claim (among others), backed by all relevant documents which govern the activities of both NATO and The United Nations that, and I quote…

The contradiction between the NATO Treaty and the security architecture created by the UN Charter is clear. Chapter VII of the Charter governs all nations with respect to international security. There can be no legal basis for the establishment of any military alliances such as NATO whose clear political objectives are aggression and American hegemony over the world.

Article 8 requires NATO member nations not to enter into any international “engagement’ in conflict with this Treaty. Yet they had already done so becoming members of the United Nations. So, not only is the NATO Treaty a violation of the UN Charter, in fact, a negation of it, its own members are in violation of the NATO Treaty by being members of the UN.

In consequence, the Americans and their allies have, to all intents and purposes, abandoned the United Nations as the final arbiter of international security and now promote their private club of aggressors as its replacement, not to establish peace, but to conduct war.

Quoted from: ‘Russia to the US: Your Aggression Stops Here’ – Christopher Black – for New Eastern Outlook

Wouldn’t you like to see someone of means engage Christopher to prosecute that case?

Allow me to give my layman’s version of what was said. It is not possible, or at least neither legal nor ethical, for any nation to be a member state of both The United Nations and the NATO Alliance. In fact the very existence of NATO (being a military alliance) is in clear violation of the UN Charter as being the final arbiter of international security.

That would also be why NATO never seeks UN authorisation for its activities, and also presumably why such authorisation could never be given.

There is much more of interest in Christopher Black’s article, which I hope you will read for yourself.

‘Russia to the US: Your Aggression Stops Here’ – Christopher Black – for New Eastern Outlook.