Is NATO about to break international law again?

As this article goes to Press, the NATO member states are holed up in their Brussels Headquarters yet again scheming together to attack a sovereign nation outside the auspices of the UNO. In other words, yet another act of terrorism, another breach of international law, another act of disrespect for the UNO and a violation of its Charter.
I correct myself. By "member states" I mean the United States of America, egged on eagerly by Top Poodle - the UK, while the other members sit and listen obediently while their contribution to yet another act of terrorism - an illegal attack against a sovereign state outside the auspices of international law - is pencilled into the scheme.

A few token peace-keeping military police from the Portuguese, unwilling to ruffle many feathers; a more proactive role for the Baltic States, willing to make amends for their disgusting record during the Second World War; a nice bloodthirsty role for the British Gurkhas, Nepalese psychopaths sent in to slit throats with a Kukri knife, all in the name of King and Country, and so on...

An act of war has, under international law, to receive the sanction from the United Nations Security Council, this being the only proper forum of international law, and as agreed by NATO member states when they signed the UN Charter, is the only forum and legal body which can justify a causis belli - a cause for war.

Article 2 of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against a sovereign state where it has not committed aggression on other states.
Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter states: "All Members 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".

On the provisions which enable a nation to wage war, Article 51: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the UNO, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security".
In the case of Libya, neither collective self-defence nor security are minimally in question. Any act of aggression involving military forces against Libya must necessarily come after a specific resolution justifying the same at the UNSC and after a separate Resolution has confirmed the collective action. A violation of Libyan airspace by NATO jets would be an act of war, and would render such equipment liable to being shot out of the sky.

NATO has no jurisdiction whatsoever to act like the global policeman, firstly because this role belongs to the UNO (crimes are handled by the properly constituted police forces in any country, not a self-styled mob of vigilantes, which NATO has become) and anyway, who elected NATO to rule over the armed forces of its member states, let alone take unilateral control of any other region? Surely NATO's existential crisis is that it is unconstitutional?

Article 53 (Chapter VIII) of the UN Charter clearly says that:

"The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council."

Before it commits (yet) another act of international terrorism, let us remind NATO of its own Charter, which claims it is a defensive organization and is only committed to force if one of its members is attacked.

"Article 1

"The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. [...]
"Article 7

"This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security."

Like any other nation, the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (a State ruled by the people through People's Councils) has its laws and among these is the right of the Government to employ the authorities to protect the State against acts of vandalism, terrorism and armed insurrection.

The "evidence" cooked up and spread by the international "bought" media has so far been pitiful: manipulating news of air strikes which never took place. In fact, Libya's armed forces have been very careful to limit their operations to munitions dumps and to keep armed incursions into areas held by hostile elements to the level of punitive raids, then pulling out again to decrease casualties.

What has happened is that the USA has used mercenaries to sow chaos and then blame the Libyan authorities - a reason why one of the main leaders of the insurrection in Cyrenaica, Khaled Maassou, has claimed he is giving up because he does not agree with the participation of armed mercenaries commissioned by the USA on Libyan territory.

Libya, for its part, has called on the UNO and the African Union to form an International Peace Commission and has welcomed a free and fair investigation into the insurrection. NATO, for its part, would do well to heed the terms of the treaties its member states have signed and not commit yet another act of terrorism.