Legality of Iraq War

[Hollus]

Clearly the invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression as described in Article 5.1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Considered to be one of the four most serious crimes of concern to the international community, it falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. It was addressed earlier by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg following World War II, which called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council. If these requirements are not met international law calls it a war of aggression.

[M.Dancer]

The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council. If these requirements are not met international law calls it a war of aggression

Again?

United Nations Security Council Resolution 678

United Nations Security Council Resolution 660

United Nations Security Council Resolution 687

United Nations Security Council Resolution 688

Did I miss any?

Next!

[kuzadd]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 is a UN security council resolution authorizing member states to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security"[1] to the Persian Gulf region, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. It effectively authorized the use of force by member states against Iraq to repel its invasion. It was the final UN security council resolution regarding the matter prior to the coalition military action.

The old resolutions related to the kuwait invasion do not apply to the US's illegal invasion of iraq, which is why the US went to the UN, to get approval for new resolutions which they did not get.

NEXT!

[M.Dancer]

UNSC RESOLUTION 687

Conscious of the need to take the following measures acting under Chapter VII* of the Charter,

1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire;

*

Chapter V11 Un Charter

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations

Game Set ad Match......

[Mad_Michael]

The official US position upon the issue is that their military invasion of Iraq fails under the authority granted by UNSC 687 (1991).

While this might be 'stretching the resolution' almost to the breaking point, the fact remains that the US invasion of Iraq is thus, technically (and arguably) legal.

I may still argue that it was stupid, pig-headed and bad policy (and indeed, a sign of US weakness), but I'd never suggest that it was categorically illegal.

[Mad_Michael]

The old resolutions related to the kuwait invasion do not apply to the US's illegal invasion of iraq, which is why the US went to the UN, to get approval for new resolutions which they did not get.

UNSC 687 applies to the state/government of Iraq, not Kuwait. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was only the 'occasion' for the issuance of UNSC 687 which specifically applies to Iraq - and to which, Iraq ultimately failed to comply with.

There is room for some dispute as to whether UNSC 687 offers 'clear-cut' authorization for the invasion or only 'inferred' authority (based on Iraqi non-compliance). Anyone who suggests that this resolution categorically authorizes or forbids the invasion of Iraq is playing partisan games.

Certainly the USA tried in 2002/03 to get the UNSC to issue a clear and categorical order for the invasion of Iraq, but the failure of this 'diplomacy' does not in any way prejudice the standing of UNSC 687 (1991).

[bush_cheney2004]

...Certainly the USA tried in 2002/03 to get the UNSC to issue a clear and categorical order for the invasion of Iraq, but the failure of this 'diplomacy' does not in any way prejudice the standing of UNSC 687 (1991).

Agreed..the legal persistence of UNSC 687 was never in doubt and formed the legal basis for not only subsequent UN actions, but also UK/US military strikes against Iraq from 1992 - 1998. International law does not play favorites unless one is on the losing side.

However, the UK, as signatories to the ICC, was less confident of their legal standing for wholesale invasion, and sought another resolution to remove any doubt. The Americans were confident either way, with fresh precedent from NATO's Allied Force (Kosovo) and a domestic green light from Congress.

[ScottSA]

I'm not going to re-enter this repeat of what has been explained countless times before, just because Hollus is too lazy to read up on past threads.

[Hollus]

The terms of Resolution 687 comprise of "agreement," that was offered by an international organization and then accepted by the government of Iraq. The terms of Resolution 687 were never captured in an agreement between Iraq and those states "cooperating" with the government of Kuwait. As such, when applying traditional international law theory mutatis mutandis to such a "ceasefire agreement," a violation of the agreement would only entitle the parties to the agreement to resume hostilities. In this case, the Security Council as an organ would be entitled to authorize the resumption of hostilities against Iraq, but other entities, such as member states, would not be so entitled. Nothing in Resolution 687 suggests that the security Council sought to leave to Member States the role of monitoring the resolution. Indeed, the opposite is the case; in paragraph thirty-four of the resolution, the Security Council decided "to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."-Georgetown Law Journal

The UNSC 687 Resolution revival argument was bogusly put forth by the Bush administration.

In a letter dated March 7, 2003 from the British Attorney General to Prime Misnister Blair the right to use force by either the US or UK is disscused

I am aware that the USA has been arguing for recognition of a broad doctrine of a right to use force to pre-empt danger in the future. If this means more than a right to respond proportionately to an imminent attack (and I understand that the doctrine is intended to carry that connotation) this is not a doctrine which, in my opinion, exists or is recognised in international law.

Finally, I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis but also on the question of proportionality. Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution): must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions; be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations. That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.

[ScottSA]

The terms of Resolution 687 comprise of "agreement," that was offered by an international organization and then accepted by the government of Iraq. The terms of Resolution 687 were never captured in an agreement between Iraq and those states "cooperating" with the government of Kuwait. As such, when applying traditional international law theory mutatis mutandis to such a "ceasefire agreement," a violation of the agreement would only entitle the parties to the agreement to resume hostilities. In this case, the Security Council as an organ would be entitled to authorize the resumption of hostilities against Iraq, but other entities, such as member states, would not be so entitled. Nothing in Resolution 687 suggests that the security Council sought to leave to Member States the role of monitoring the resolution. Indeed, the opposite is the case; in paragraph thirty-four of the resolution, the Security Council decided "to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."-Georgetown Law Journal

The UNSC 687 Resolution revival argument was bogusly put forth by the Bush administration.

In a letter dated March 7, 2003 from the British Attorney General to Prime Misnister Blair the right to use force by either the US or UK is disscused

I am aware that the USA has been arguing for recognition of a broad doctrine of a right to use force to pre-empt danger in the future. If this means more than a right to respond proportionately to an imminent attack (and I understand that the doctrine is intended to carry that connotation) this is not a doctrine which, in my opinion, exists or is recognised in international law.

Finally, I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis but also on the question of proportionality. Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution): must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions; be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations. That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.

This is the usual dishonesty of a truther. What you are quoting, in select part, is a legal brief by the British Attorney General to Blair discussing possible legal tactics by opposition forces. Do truthers lie and misrepresent as a matter of course or only most of the time? Oh, and find me the codification of a docrine of proportionality, if you'll be so kind.

[Hollus]

This is the usual dishonesty of a truther. What you are quoting, in select part, is a legal brief by the British Attorney General to Blair discussing possible legal tactics by opposition forces. Do truthers lie and misrepresent as a matter of course or only most of the time? Oh, and find me the codification of a docrine of proportionality, if you'll be so kind.

Selective reading ScottSA. I noticed you've failed to address the qoute from the Georgetown Law Journal that debunks exactly what you've been touting as justification of the legality of the Iraq war.

[ScottSA]

This is the usual dishonesty of a truther. What you are quoting, in select part, is a legal brief by the British Attorney General to Blair discussing possible legal tactics by opposition forces. Do truthers lie and misrepresent as a matter of course or only most of the time? Oh, and find me the codification of a docrine of proportionality, if you'll be so kind.

Selective reading ScottSA. I noticed you've failed to address the qoute from the Georgetown Law Journal that debunks exactly what you've been touting as justification of the legality of the Iraq war.

That argument is a specious one even if it isn't taken dishonestly out of context. The very use of the term "mutatis mutandis" from domestic contract law makes it quite clear that this is a grasping after straws, and I strongly suspect that in context it is thoroughly rebutted by other parties. Res 687 doesn't require a further stipulation that member states be allowed to resume hostilities. International enforcement is on the posse system, not under some variation of domestic law that requires a police force and specific authorization for each action. This argument is tantamount to demanding that a policeman requires a specific law written for each arrest he is about to make. Sure, the agreement is between the UN and Iraq, but the UNSC is the enforcement arm of the UN, so unless the UNSC issues a resolution abrogating 687, it stands for enforcement. What the UNSC did instead of abrogating it is issue 15 more resolutions recalling and affirming it.

[Hollus]

The very use of the term "mutatis mutandis" from domestic contract law makes it quite clear that this is a grasping after straws, and I strongly suspect that in context it is thoroughly rebutted by other parties.

Selective reading again ScottSA. The sentence clearly states: "applying traditional international law theory mutatis mutandis".

You strongly suspect that in context it is thoroughly rebutted? Well than do be so kind as to provide some reference as opposed to your unqualified opinion. Here is the link so you can reply appropriatly.

[ScottSA]

The very use of the term "mutatis mutandis" from domestic contract law makes it quite clear that this is a grasping after straws, and I strongly suspect that in context it is thoroughly rebutted by other parties.

Selective reading again ScottSA. The sentence clearly states: "applying traditional international law theory mutatis mutandis".

You strongly suspect that in context it is thoroughly rebutted? Well than do be so kind as to provide some reference as opposed to you unqualified opinion. Here is the link so you can reply appropriatly.

I'm afraid, boyo, that the selective reading is on your part. This is not a legal rendering, it's an article in a journal, the counter to which I or anyone else can find all over the net. In fact, if there were any strength to this argument, France would have used it loudly and often.

Here, for instance, is a counterargument in a much much more prestigious journal:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4 If you don't have access, you can read the brief.

[Hollus]

The very use of the term "mutatis mutandis" from domestic contract law makes it quite clear that this is a grasping after straws, and I strongly suspect that in context it is thoroughly rebutted by other parties.

Selective reading again ScottSA. The sentence clearly states: "applying traditional international law theory mutatis mutandis".

You strongly suspect that in context it is thoroughly rebutted? Well than do be so kind as to provide some reference as opposed to you unqualified opinion. Here is the link so you can reply appropriatly.

I'm afraid, boyo, that the selective reading is on your part. This is not a legal rendering, it's an article in a journal, the counter to which I or anyone else can find all over the net. In fact, if there were any strength to this argument, France would have used it loudly and often.

HA! What ridiculous rhetoric. A legal journal, analyzing legal rendering, authored by legal experts. And you consider this to be insuficient in response to your own legal analysis! Ofcourse you havnt even read the 44 page article that you so self-righteously disregard! A clear illustration of your hypocratic nature on this forum. A failure to respond to this discredits everything youve said thus far.

(Edit: Thank you for editing your post and providing a source. I will have to go to the library to read it. However, I have posted an excert pertaining to the resolution revival argument. Maybe you could post an excert form your source? In Particular from the section that claims to explain how "other leading nations (primarily France, Germany, and Russia) and many international scholars...failed to properly read existing Security Council resolutions to authorize the use of force.")

[ScottSA]

The very use of the term "mutatis mutandis" from domestic contract law makes it quite clear that this is a grasping after straws, and I strongly suspect that in context it is thoroughly rebutted by other parties.

Selective reading again ScottSA. The sentence clearly states: "applying traditional international law theory mutatis mutandis".

You strongly suspect that in context it is thoroughly rebutted? Well than do be so kind as to provide some reference as opposed to you unqualified opinion. Here is the link so you can reply appropriatly.

I'm afraid, boyo, that the selective reading is on your part. This is not a legal rendering, it's an article in a journal, the counter to which I or anyone else can find all over the net. In fact, if there were any strength to this argument, France would have used it loudly and often.

HA! What ridiculous rhetoric. A legal journal, analyzing legal rendering, authored by legal experts. And you consider this to be insuficient in response to your own legal analysis! Ofcourse you havnt even read the 44 page article that you so self-righteously disregard! A clear illustration of your hypocratic nature on this forum. A failure to respond to this discredits everything youve said thus far.

(Edit: Thank you for editing your post and providing a source. I will have to go to the library to read it. However, I have posted an excert pertaining to the resolution revival argument. Maybe you could post an excert form your source? In Particular from the section that claims to explain how "other leading nations (primarily France, Germany, and Russia) and many international scholars...failed to properly read existing Security Council resolutions to authorize the use of force.")

No, I'm not going to get bogged down in vague arguments of legal minutiae that neither one of us are equipped to argue. I have a general knowledge of international law from a political studies background, but I am no more an international lawyer than you are. One thing I have noticed about truthers is that they will focus on one tiny aspect of an issue and hammer it home, ignored the general vistas around it. That's what you're doing here, or attempting to, and I'm not going to play. If Russia or France had an issue with the legality of it, why, as members of the UNSC, did they sign 1441 wchich reaffirmed 687 and, just for good measure, expand it? Why did they not claim that the invasion was illegal after the fact? Unlike truthers, I prefer to look at the big picture, the obvious, rather than select tiny questions.

I have shown you a counter argument from The American Journal of International Law. I can find dozens more, as you well know, just as you too can find lots arguing your side. None of that matters in the final analysis, because in order for it to be "illegal" de jure, a UNSC res olution claiming it to be is needed, and it'll be a frosty day in hell before that happens.

[Hollus]

No, I'm not going to get bogged down in vague arguments of legal minutiae that neither one of us are equipped to argue. I have a general knowledge of international law from a political studies background, but I am no more an international lawyer than you are. One thing I have noticed about truthers is that they will focus on one tiny aspect of an issue and hammer it home, ignored the general vistas around it. That's what you're doing here, or attempting to, and I'm not going to play. If Russia or France had an issue with the legality of it, why, as members of the UNSC, did they sign 1441 wchich reaffirmed 687 and, just for good measure, expand it? Why did they not claim that the invasion was illegal after the fact? Unlike truthers, I prefer to look at the big picture, the obvious, rather than select tiny questions.

Could it be that you will not reply with an excerpt from your source because you don't have access to it and simply sourced an un-read article that claims to explain why the assertions Ive presented are false? You seemed perfectly happy to get 'bogged down' in legal 'minutiae' when your legal assertions were going unchallenged by substantive sources. May I remind you the title of this thread? One thing I have noticed about bushies is that they will disregard anything and everything that does not re-enforce there assertions, and then attack the contesting view with personal or general insults, and then try redirecting the line of argument by asking a bunch of questions of which there is no definite answer.

However in this case I must point out in response to your question of:

If Russia or France had an issue with the legality of it...Why did they not claim that the invasion was illegal after the fact?

The source you provided states: "leading nations (primarily France, Germany, and Russia) and many international scholars have argued that international law did not justify the war in Iraq"

I have shown you a counter argument from The American Journal of International Law. I can find dozens more, as you well know, just as you too can find lots arguing your side. None of that matters in the final analysis, because in order for it to be "illegal" de jure, a UNSC res olution claiming it to be is needed, and it'll be a frosty day in hell before that happens.

You have sourced a counter argument from which you seem not to have read and which cannot be read by many others in this forum unless they have access to the JSTOR database. You've refused to illustrate how your counter argument actually pertains to the argument Ive presented, yet you continue to assert that your assertions are correct. Hope your proud of yourself...

You claim to look at the big picture. I suspect it's wallet sized and depicts yourself standing next to God.

[myata]

The "earlier resolution" argument has no standing from any point of view other than hired (and paid skyhigh $$$$) lawyer's. For a simple analogy, consider police coming to search your house with a 10 year old order. Of course they'll be laughed out of court. Clearly, Bushes & Co understood at least that much, so they went to Security Council and tried to get a fresh resolution. They wasted no effort twisting members hands (and truth) but in the end they did not get it.

That's it, period. There's no legal ground for the Iraq war.

[kuzadd]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk

Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

The attack on Iraq was the WRONG thing.

[kuzadd]

http://www.globelaw.com/Iraq/Preventive_war_after_iraq.htm

Many international lawyers believe that attack was illegal and amounted to a war of aggression.

then afterwards it got even worse

A number of breaches of international law have already been reported following the occupation of Iraq, including failure to prevent looting and allowing breakdown of law and order to take place in Baghdad, failure to provide humanitarian assistance and shooting of civilians during protest. Members of the ‘coalition of the willing’ that go to Iraq under Security Council resolution 1483 (2003) would go as belligerent occupants and would be subject to the requirements of international law accordingly, and may themselves incur responsibility or individual liability for actions which have or which will place in Iraq.

This paper finds that any members of the “coalition of the willing” may be responsible for compensation, including direct loss, damage, including environmental damage and the depletion of natural resources, or injury to foreign Governments, nationals and corporations.

Under Security Council resolution 1483 (2003), no protection is given to Member States or their officials from liability under the Geneva Conventions, Hague Regulations or other provisions of international or national law including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

[kuzadd]

The "earlier resolution" argument has no standing from any point of view other than hired (and paid skyhigh $$$$) lawyer's. For a simple analogy, consider police coming to search your house with a 10 year old order. Of course they'll be laughed out of court. Clearly, Bushes & Co understood at least that much, so they went to Security Council and tried to get a fresh resolution. They wasted no effort twisting members hands (and truth) but in the end they did not get it.

That's it, period. There's no legal ground for the Iraq war.

I like your analogy!

could you imagine if the police came to your house with a ten yr old search warrant, and you no longer lived there?!

it's obvious Bush and co. understood this and that is why then TRIED, unsuccessfully, to get a new resolution.

[ScottSA]

The "earlier resolution" argument has no standing from any point of view other than hired (and paid skyhigh $$$$) lawyer's. For a simple analogy, consider police coming to search your house with a 10 year old order. Of course they'll be laughed out of court. Clearly, Bushes & Co understood at least that much, so they went to Security Council and tried to get a fresh resolution. They wasted no effort twisting members hands (and truth) but in the end they did not get it.

That's it, period. There's no legal ground for the Iraq war.

You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Not the slightest clue. This is not about the police coming to your house. This is not about warrants. This is not about domestic law. This is about intl law. Your analogy points to the dearth of a clue you have about this entire subject.

[ScottSA]

No, I'm not going to get bogged down in vague arguments of legal minutiae that neither one of us are equipped to argue. I have a general knowledge of international law from a political studies background, but I am no more an international lawyer than you are. One thing I have noticed about truthers is that they will focus on one tiny aspect of an issue and hammer it home, ignored the general vistas around it. That's what you're doing here, or attempting to, and I'm not going to play. If Russia or France had an issue with the legality of it, why, as members of the UNSC, did they sign 1441 wchich reaffirmed 687 and, just for good measure, expand it? Why did they not claim that the invasion was illegal after the fact? Unlike truthers, I prefer to look at the big picture, the obvious, rather than select tiny questions.

Could it be that you will not reply with an excerpt from your source because you don't have access to it and simply sourced an un-read article that claims to explain why the assertions Ive presented are false? You seemed perfectly happy to get 'bogged down' in legal 'minutiae' when your legal assertions were going unchallenged by substantive sources. May I remind you the title of this thread? One thing I have noticed about bushies is that they will disregard anything and everything that does not re-enforce there assertions, and then attack the contesting view with personal or general insults, and then try redirecting the line of argument by asking a bunch of questions of which there is no definite answer.

However in this case I must point out in response to your question of:

If Russia or France had an issue with the legality of it...Why did they not claim that the invasion was illegal after the fact?

The source you provided states: "leading nations (primarily France, Germany, and Russia) and many international scholars have argued that international law did not justify the war in Iraq"

I have shown you a counter argument from The American Journal of International Law. I can find dozens more, as you well know, just as you too can find lots arguing your side. None of that matters in the final analysis, because in order for it to be "illegal" de jure, a UNSC res olution claiming it to be is needed, and it'll be a frosty day in hell before that happens.

You have sourced a counter argument from which you seem not to have read and which most likely can not be read by many others in this forum unless they have access to the JSTOR database. You've refused to illustrate how your counter argument actually pertains to the argument Ive presented, yet you continue to assert that your assertions are correct. Hope your proud of yourself...

You claim to look at the big picture. I suspect it's wallet sized and depicts yourself standing next to God.

Show me a subsequent UNSC resolution rendering the invasion illegal. You can't. In the absence of such a resolution, all the recourse you have is to dig up inconsequential legal opinions and trade them with me. The UNSC is the final arbiter of international law, such as international law is, and only it can formalize a legality or illegality.

What you are in effect doing is pointing to a lawyer standing outside a courthouse bellowing that a defendant on trial inside is guilty, and claiming that this lawyer's bellowing proves that what he says is true. Except that the US is not even on trial...so your lawyer is really trying to claim that a bystander is guilty of something he's not even on trial for.

International law is a joke, and its enforcement is even more of a joke. It's a collection of conventions loosely tied around a set of principles and interpreted and enforced by the strongest people on the block...or at least it used to be...these days the UNSC isn't even reflective of the major powers. Be that as it may, it is all the law the international arena has, and simply making claims about it matters not one whit. Backing claims up with reference to opinion means nothing at all either. The left has grown fond, over the years, of claiming that every action it doesn't like is "illegal," often citing opinion pieces and UNGA resolutions as "proof," when they are about as meanigful as me claiming the moon is square and citing my opinion as "proof" of it.

[myata]

You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Not the slightest clue. ...

Wow... what an insight! Definitely a key argument in the pro-war case. Makes all the difference.

[ScottSA]

You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Not the slightest clue. ...

Wow... what an insight! Definitely a key argument in the pro-war case. Makes all the difference.

Sorry, but your post was inane and not worthy of serious comment. It's a common leftist mistake, to be sure; mistaking a leftist sense of what "ought" to be for what "is," but it doesn't have any bearing on the real world.