[Spar]

ABrit, if he is from the UK, being that he comes from a nation without a written constitution I am guessing he has never read any of the House of Commons' report on the Kosovo-NATO matter. As an American, having had my artificially created USA held together by the likes of Gen. Sherman and his army's march to the sea campaign, who am I to tell the Yugoslav authorities not to try hard and keep their nation intact.

[ABrit]

All states are artificial creations, the point is do they reflect the will of the people as far as can be fairly ascertained.

Your point about the Select commitee report is taken, and it may well be that the Nato actions in the Balkans were "illegal".

However my point is not whether security council veto by Russia, China, and (I think it was Sudan), makes something legal, or illegal.

My question is, faced with the choice, should one do the legal thing, or the right thing.

I think the right thing every time, especially in the circumstances at the time in the Balkans.

Your problem with a written constitution is that it is inflexible. Supposing something comes up which has not been forseen, then you are rendered helpless.

Suppose someone, on behalf of some foreign state, detonates a small nuclear device in New York. From intercepts your people know who did it, but from a legal point of view, the evidence is ruled out by some judge under some constitutionally provided loophole. Your lawyers can’t prove it, and Russia and China veto action in the security council.

See what I mean. Your Constitution, and UN approval is a double edged sword.