Now, let's go into the legality of the Iraq war, under interntional law.
gbaji wrote:
On what basis do you call the invasion illegal? I'm really curious to know...
Ok then, let's lay the cards on the table.
I studied Law at the London School of Economics (3rd best Uni in the UK) as an undergraduate, and I graduated in 2001. In 2003, I enrolled at Durham University for a Masters in Public Interntional Law, where I graduated with a First, including a grade of 76% at my dissertation, which was on on the legality of the economic reforms made by the CPA in Iraq. The 76% happened to be the highest grade in the year. Next year, I'm enrolling for a PhD, in Public International Law, to write a dissertation on the legality of France's military actions in its African former colonies between 1962 and 2001.
That's my
basis.
What's yours? Newspapers? Did you read a textbook? Read the UN Charter? Seriously, i'm curous...
Now, let's move on the international law.
As you probably know, there are two types of interntional law: customary, and treaties. Treaties, amongst them the UN Charter, primes over customary law, which is only used when no express agreements on the subject exist (meaning treaties).
Use of force is expressly forbidden in interntional law
(Chapter 2(4)):
Quote:
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.
There are only 2 expections to this.
One is self-defence (Chapter VII, Article 51):
Quote:
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 United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security
The other, collective actions taken under the guise of the UN, CXhapter VII, article 49:
Quote:
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.
That's it.
So, for the war in Iraq to be legal, it would have to fall under either of those. It clearly doesn't fall under Article 49, since the UN did not get involved, and the 2nd resolution which would've authorised UN action was not even discussed.
So, the only way you could argue it was legal, was under self-defense. As far as I know, the US didn't come under attack from Iraq, so no self-defense.
Some would argue the Bush doctrine of "pre-emptive" self-defence, which is tenous at best, but acceptable in some cases, such as nukes. But Iraq was nowhere near attacking the US, and was not planning an attack on it. So even pre-emptive self-defense doesn't apply.
It was, therefor, illegal. It is that simple.
Now, i know what you're gonna say: breach of the terms of the cease-fire leads to a renewing of hostilities.
So, let's look at these points:
- Breach of the terms of the cease-fire: Who determines that the terms have been breached? According to Paragraph 34 of Resolution 687, "[The Security Council] decides 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."
So, if anyone was to decide that terms had been breached, it was the SC, not the US.
Second the terms of the cease-fire was between Iraq and the UN, not Iraq and the US. So the only party that could decide to renew hostilities was the SC.
That's pretty much the end of the argument.
But, I know what you're going to say. Maybe invoke Article 60 of the Vienna Convention? The one that states that:
Quote:
A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.'
Cos that would be an awesome argument, right? Totally awesome, even, if only it didn't say "bilateral treaty".
So no, that doesn't apply either.
And, to further compund the point, it is worth noting that Article 33 of the resolution 687 says that: "upon official
notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678".
Hence the cease-fire was effective upon, and dependent on, the "notification" of the acceptance, not the continuing acceptance. I could even quote Dr Glen Rangwala, a famous international lawyer at Cambridge University,
who says that "'the standard view in international law — both from academics and from states — has been that a ceasefire returns the parties to a state of peace, and any prior right to use force is terminated."
Now, no doubt you'll use your wealth of knowledge to magically argue that a 12 year old resolution dealing specifically with the removal of Iraq from Kuwait, somehow justifies the unilateral invasion and occupation of that country.
But anyone whose salary doesn't depend on it knows, because it is so painfully clear and obvious, that this invasion was illegal under international law.