International Law and a War on Iraq
This sections looks into the question of the legality of a US-led war on Iraq. International law establishes principles and criteria, based on treaties, conventions, court cases and the UN Charter. These govern the circumstances under which states may legally go to war. Comments by legal experts consider the arguments put forward by the United States and the UK to establish the legality of their cause and the counter-arguments by other nations and by legal scholars. The body of opinion considers the US-UK position to be contrary to international law and liable to undermine important principles of world order.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq Crisis | US War | Oil in Iraq | Sanctions Against Iraq | US Arm-Twisting | Media Coverage
Documents | Weapons Inspections | Saddam's Regime | No-Fly Zones | Anti-War Protests
Consequences of a War | Other Articles | Links
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each section below has a link to follow...link to this page is at bottom of post:
International Humanitarian Law Issues in a Potential War in Iraq (February 20, 2003)
This Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper examines some of the key issues that may arise under international humanitarian law in the event of a US-led attack against Iraq. These legal issues include concerns about urban combat, targeting decisions, and the duties of an occupying power.
Legality Of Use Of Force Against Iraq (September 10, 2002)
An excellent legal brief that argues against the use of force by the UK against Iraq, giving many precedents in international law. (Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy)
2003 | 2002
2003
One Rule for Them (March 25, 2003)
Washington complains that displaying captured US soldiers on Iraqi TV breaches the Geneva Conventions. This sudden concern for international law does not apply to the US itself. The government feels free to wage an illegal war on Iraq and breach 15 articles of the Geneva Conventions by its treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo bay. (Guardian)
Law Groups Say US Invasion Illegal (March 21, 2003)
Two US legal groups denounce the US attack on Iraq as a violation of the UN charter and 50 years of international law. Such an action "would simply return us to an international order based on imperial ambition and coercive force," they stated in an open letter on the attack. (OneWorld)
Tearing Up the Rules: The Illegality of Invading Iraq (March 2003)
A US-led invasion of Iraq will be illegal under the UN Charter and international law generally. This legal report by the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) clearly rejects efforts by the US and UK to circumvent the Security Council and claim legal justification for a war against Iraq.
As Attack on Iraq Begins, Question Remains: Is It Legal? (March 21, 2003)
International-law experts agree that President Bush cannot justify the US war against Iraq with his new doctrine of preemptive military action to forestall a supposed threat to the US. There is also widespread agreement that the war is a violation of the UN Charter. (Christian Science Monitor)
Sorry, Mr Blair, but 1441 Does Not Authorise Force (March 17, 2003)
In regards to an attack on Iraq, Keir Starmer argues that the UN Charter justifies only two possibilities for military action: individual or collective self-defense, or if the Security Council decides that force is necessary to "to maintain or restore international peace and security.” (Guardian)
Law Unto Themselves (March 14, 2003)
It is the near-unanimous view of international lawyers that a military attack against Iraq under existing UN resolutions would be a violation of international law, despite claims to the contrary by the governments of the US and the UK (Guardian)
Are Bush and Blair Breaking the Law? (February 25, 2003)
International experts are divided about the legality of war with Iraq. Some argue that preparing a war is a crime against peace as stated by the 1945 Nuremberg charter. (Times, London)
Bush and Blair Must See that Law Has a Life of its Own (February 23, 2003)
UN Security Council Resolution 1441 does not contain the magic words ‘all necessary means’ when contemplating action stemming from a material breach, meaning a second resolution is necessary to legally justify war. International law has become more important to the public than in the past so the US should be wary of acting alone. (Alertnet)
Lawyers, Doctors Warn UN Over US Attack on Iraq (February 12, 2003)
Two groups representing more than 300 international lawyers and physicians have issued statements to the UN Security Council warning that a US attack on Iraq would be in blatant violation of international law and would cost thousands of lives. (Inter Press Service)
US Prepared to Violate International Law (February 1, 2003)
"We continue to reserve our sovereign right to take military action against Iraq alone or in a coalition," said US Secretary of State Colin Powell. Yet, international law does not provide for this kind of sovereign right, and the UN does not recognize the use of unilateral military force. (Coastal Convergence Society)
Before the War (February 2003)
Ignacio Ramonet argues that while all indications are that a US-led war against Iraq will begin soon, "there is still nothing under the international rule of law to justify this aggression." (Le Monde Diplomatique)
Lawyers Grapple With Attack on Iraq (January 31, 2003)
Gerry Simpson from the London School of Economics discusses the legal aspects of a possible US war against Iraq and the controversial Bush Doctrine of using force to prevent future attacks from potential enemies. (AlterNet)
America's Dangerous New Style of War (January 29, 2003)
Dinah Po Kempner, general counsel at Human Rights Watch, considers how the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war that provide some minimal protection to noncombatants would be affected by the planned US attack on Iraq. (Boston Globe)
US Lawyers Warn Bush on War Crimes (January 28, 2003)
President George W. Bush and senior government officials could be prosecuted for war crimes if “military tactics violated international humanitarian law.” In addition, the International Criminal Court in The Hague could prosecute officials from Great Britain and Canada for their actions in a war against Iraq. (Lawyers Against the War)
Iraqi Minister: US Violates International Law (January 4, 2003)
In a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri accuses the US of violating international law by “supporting mercenaries against the government of Saddam Hussein,” and cites how the US infringes upon the sovereignty of Iraq by funding and training Iraqi opposition groups. (Associated Press)
2002
Iraqis' Suffering Can Be Made Worse (December 27, 2002)
Oxfam Director Barbara Stocking depicts the alarming humanitarian situation caused by a decade of sanctions, and warns that an attack would only worsen it. Referring to the Geneva Conventions, she asks, “how can an attack on Iraq fail to violate international humanitarian law?” (International Herald Tribune)
CND Asks High Court to Outlaw War on Iraq (December 9, 2002)
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament seeks permission to apply for judicial review of UK Prime Minister Blair, Foreign Secretary Straw, and Defense Secretary Hoon to prevent them from going to war without Security Council authorization. (Agence France Press)
Lawyers Statement on UN Resolution 1441 on Iraq (December 5, 2002)
Professors of law and practicing lawyers urge the Bush administration to follow “the [US] Constitution, to comply with the UN Charter, and not unilaterally attack Iraq.” They argue that Resolution 1441 does not authorize member states to unilaterally attack Iraq. Instead, it requires the Security Council to decide on what to do about a possible Iraqi violation. (Foreign Policy in Focus)
Material Breach: US Crimes in Iraq (December 1, 2002)
The US seems likely to use any “whitewash pretext” necessary to accuse Iraq of a “material breach” of resolution 1441 in a push for war. However, the US ought to examine its own flagrant breaches of international law in Iraq that caused unnecessary suffering for Iraqi civilians. (truthout)
Legal Opinion: In the Matter of the Potential Use of Armed Force by the UK Against Iraq (November 2002)
This legal opinion for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament argues that “Security Council Resolution 1441 does not authorize the use of force by member states of the UN” and that the “UK would be in breach of international law” if it attacks Iraq without a new resolution. (Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy)
See You In Court (November 25, 2002)
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) will take Prime Minister Tony Blair to court, unless he agrees that the UK will not attack Iraq without a new UN resolution. CND lawyers say that a US-UK attack would constitute a breach of international law. (Guardian)
Bombing Dual-Use Targets? (November 12, 2002)
International law relies on the principles of distinguishing between combatants and civilians, of proportionality, of military necessity, and of avoiding unnecessary suffering. This article asks how the Security Council can authorize acts that violate the very principles of law that the UN supposedly upholds. (Cape Cod Times)
Avoiding War: Using International Law to Compel a Problem-Solving Approach (November 5, 2002)
This paper claims that international public law requires that states search for substitutes to military responses to terrorism. It uses Afghanistan as an example of failure by the US and UN to find alternatives to military action, but the same argument can also apply to the threat of war on Iraq. (Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research )
Letter to the Members of the Security Council (October 2, 2002)
(LAW) outlines the illegality of a war against Iraq. LAW argues that the threats issued by President Bush at the UN on Sept. 12 already violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and urges the Security Council to fulfill its duty of seeking a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The United Nations Charter and the Use of Force Against Iraq (October 2, 2002)
The US would violate the UN Charter by using force against Iraq without authorization from the Security Council or if not acting in collective or individual self-defense. The US can therefore not justify an attack on Iraq by claiming “Iraqi material breach" of cease-fire obligations. (Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy)
The Use of Force by the United States Against Iraq: Legal Issues (September 30, 2002)
Lawyers Against the War examines the legality of the use of force against Iraq, underlining the lack of evidence of an imminent Iraqi attack and the unfeasibility of relying on current Security Council resolutions to justify an attack.
Iraq and the “Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emptive of Self-Defense” (August 20, 2002)
Crimes of War Project interviews several specialists in international law and discusses legal grounds for a US attack against Iraq.
The Logic of Empire (August 6, 2002)
George Monbiot criticizes President Bush on his plans to wage war against Iraq and his foreign policy as defiant of international law. Having ripped up all treaties which interfere with its strategic objectives, he claims, “the US is now our foremost enemy. We must begin to treat it as such.” (Guardian)
Invading Iraq Would Violate US and International Law (2002)
Law Professor Marjorie Cohn argues that the legality of a US-led preemptive strike against Iraq depends on authorization from both the US Congress and the United Nations Security Council. (Lawyers Against the War)
Bombing Dual-Use Targets: Legal, Ethical, and Doctrinal Perspectives (May 1, 2001)
International law has fallen behind the advancement of precision attacks and the bombing of dual-use targets. This, together with the fact that the US hasn’t even ratified Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, creates a gray area within international law of warfare. (Air & Space Power Chronicles)
War on Iraq Based on Shaky Legal Ground (March 29, 2002)
Any military strikes against Iraq would violate international law. Only the Security Council holds the right to authorize the use of force. (Reuters)
globalpolicy.org
lcnp.org |
