Information Office of the Presidency of the Republic: Everything that is said about the violation of the constitution by President Aoun is null



[ad_1]


Information Office of the Presidency of the Republic: Everything that is said about the violation of the constitution by President Aoun is null

The Information Office of the Presidency of the Republic issued the following statement: “There has been a lot of talk in recent days about the violation of the Constitution by the President of the Republic, General Michel Aoun, in his sympathy for Article 52 of the same, to announce the Lebanese delegation that will undertake technical negotiations to demarcate the southern maritime borders. It should not sympathize with article 52 of the constitution because it stipulates international treaties, while we are not dealing with an “international treaty” with Israel, that is, what it means in terms of normalization and recognition. With the requirements of your constitutional department.

The “international treaty” included in the literal expression of article 52 of the Constitution includes all the international instruments stipulated in section A of the first paragraph of the second article of the Vienna Convention on international treaties of 1969, whose provisions have become an integral part of the general principles of international law. .

Consequently, the President of the Republic has not yet agreed to conclude or sign any international treaty to be agreed with the Prime Minister, that treaty that is not concluded until after its approval by the Council of Ministers, unless the The celebration requires the approval of the House of Representatives on this treaty under the conditions stipulated in Article 52 of the Constitution.

As for the sympathy for article 52 of the constitution, it is because whoever undertakes any negotiation on any international instrument, whatever it may be, is the president of the republic. If the intention were to involve the president of the republic and the prime minister in negotiating the conclusion of the treaty, the constitution would have explicitly stipulated that the republic and the prime minister negotiate instead of “the president of the republic conducting the negotiations.” . If participation were mandatory in the negotiations, there would be no need to stipulate the “need for an agreement” between the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister, since both took over the negotiations.

As the constitution does not distinguish, no one can distinguish and therefore the limits of jurisdiction are available in the explicit text, which cannot be interpreted. This is how jurisprudence and jurisprudence have been established in the interpretation of article 52 of the Constitution, and the opinions of the Legislative and Consultation Commission of the Ministry of Justice have been confirmed on more than one occasion, that the President of the Republic is the only one competent authority to enter into negotiations, so in the event that a contract is concluded, it must agree with the Prime Minister, before going to the Council of Ministers and then to the House of Representatives in the cases specified for approval.

Regarding the point of view that the president of the republic “normalizes and recognizes” insofar as he sympathizes with article 52 of the constitution when announcing the Lebanese negotiating delegation, it also falls within the circle of nullity because the negotiation assumption is a thing and the nature of the negotiation is another. The practical framework agreement to negotiate the demarcation of the southern maritime borders, as officially announced, begins at the practical level with the training of the Lebanese delegation and other logistical matters under the auspices and hospitality of the United Nations, and in the presence of the US mediator facilitator.

All other words are perverse statements of the constitution, and the aim is to mislead or worse yet weaken the Lebanese position at the wrong time, as Lebanon engages in practical and technical negotiations on the demarcation of its maritime borders in order to preserve its sovereignty and natural wealth in every inch of its land and its waters.

We are sufficient to be polished in the moment of seriousness, and we need national solidarity and cohesion to preserve or restore our sovereign rights. “



[ad_2]