Iraq And The Use Of Force In International Law

The prohibition of the use of force is one of the most crucial elements of the international legal order. Our understanding of that rule was both advanced and challenged during the period commencing with the termination of the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait, and concluding with the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The initial phase was characterized by hopes for a functioning collective security system administered by the United Nations as part of a New World Order. The liberation of Kuwait, in particular, was seen by some as a powerful vindication of the prohibition of the use of force and of the UN Security Council. However, the operation was not really conducted in accordance with the requirements for collective security established in the UN Charter. In a second phase, an international coalition launched a humanitarian intervention operation, first in the north of Iraq, and subsequently in the south. That episode is often seen as the fountainhead of the post-Cold War claim to a new legal justification for the use of force in circumstances of grave humanitarian emergency-a claim subsequent challenged during the armed action concerning Kosovo. There then followed repeated uses of force against Iraq in the context of the international campaign to remove its present or future weapons of mass destruction potential. Finally, the episode reached its controversial zenith with the full scale invasion of Iraq led by the US and the UK in 2003. This book analyzes these developments, and their impact on the rule prohibiting force in international relations, in a comprehensive and accessible way. It is the first to draw upon classified materials released by the UK Chilcot inquiry shedding light on the decision to go to war in 2003 and the role played by international law in that context.

The international law on the use of force is one of the oldest branches of international law. It is an area twinned with the emergence of international law as a concept in itself, and which sees law and politics collide. The number of armed conflicts is equal only to the number of methodological approaches used to describe them. Many violent encounters are well known. The Kosovo Crisis in 1999 and the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 spring easily to the minds of most scholars and academics, and gain extensive coverage in this text. Other conflicts, including the Belgian operation in Stanleyville, and the Ethiopian Intervention in Somalia, are often overlooked to our peril. Ruys and Corten's expert-written text compares over sixty different instances of the use of cross border force since the adoption of the UN Charter in 1945, from all out warfare to hostile encounters between individual units, targeted killings, and hostage rescue operations, to ask a complex question. How much authority does the power of precedent really have in the law of the use of force?

This book explores the large and controversial subject of the use of force in international law. It examines not only the use of force by states but also the role of the UN in peacekeeping and enforcement action, and the increasing role of regional organizations in the maintenance of international peace and security. The UN Charter framework is under challenge. Russia's invasion of Georgia and intervention in Ukraine, the USA's military operations in Syria, and Saudi Arabia's campaign to restore the government of Yemen by force all raise questions about the law on intervention. The 'war on terror' that began after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the USA has not been won. It has spread far beyond Afghanistan: it has led to targeted killings in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, and to intervention against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Is there an expanding right of self-defence against non-state actors? Is the use of force effective? The development of nuclear weapons by North Korea has reignited discussion about the legality of pre-emptive self-defence. The NATO-led operation in Libya increased hopes for the implementation of 'responsibility to protect', but it also provoked criticism for exceeding the Security Council's authorization of force because its outcome was regime change. UN peacekeeping faces new challenges, especially with regard to the protection of civilians, and UN forces have been given revolutionary mandates in several African states. But the 2015 report Uniting Our Strengths reaffirmed that UN peacekeeping is not suited to counter-terrorism or enforcement operations; the UN should turn to regional organizations such as the African Union as first responders in situations of ongoing armed conflict.

This book is a discussion of key documents that explain the development, current status, and relevance of the international law governing the initiation of military hostilities. International Law and the Use of Force: A Documentary and Reference Guide brings to life a crucial body of law, explaining its historical origins, the core rules and principles of the regime embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, and contentious aspects of that law in the contemporary world. In light of the intensified interest in the question of justified or unjustified use of force, this timely resource introduces and analyzes over 40 documents relating to the legality of the initiation of military hostilities. The volume presents competing assessments of the legality of key uses of force and explains mainstream positions on important issues such as national right to self-defense, anticipatory and preemptive self-defense, terrorism, aggression, and the role of the UN Security Council. The book concludes by assessing whether the international law that seeks to limit the number of wars has in fact made the world a more peaceful place.

Essay from the year 2003 in the subject Law - European and International Law, Intellectual Properties, grade: 1 (A), University of Kent (Kent Law School), 12 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: International law provides for a general prohibition of the use or the threat of use of force to settle international disputes. Only very few exceptions from this rule exist and are clearly defined in the UN Charter. The question must thus be, if resolution 1441 constitutes such an exception of the rule and thus authorises the use of force against Iraq. A close examination of the resolution shall therefore be the starting point of this discussion. However, it must be said that the wording of any Security Council resolution is subject to individual interpretation. A second step must thus be to apply rules for the interpretation of Security Council resolutions if such rules exist at all. It appears that only very little authoritative guidelines to the interpretation of Security Council resolutions exist and that thus the only reliable source of guidance is previous interpretations. Those promoting direct intervention in Iraq without a further resolution refer to NATO bombings of Kosovo. Similarly to the present situation in Iraq, the Security Council did not explicitly authorise the use of force in that case either. Later, the international community claimed that because no agreement could be reached in the Security Council, military action without Security Council authorisation was necessary in order to prevent genocide. The argument being of course, that a legitimate aim could justify the use of illegal means. The question whether direct intervention in Iraq can be legitimate on the basis of resolution 1441 seems to be a much broader question, which embraces moral and ethical considerations, too. Unfortunately, a discussion of the moral and ethical legitimacy of intervention in Iraq cannot be the topic of this essay. Nevertheless, it is important even in

The decision by the US and UK governments to use military force against Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent occupation and administration of that State, has brought into sharp focus fundamental fault lines in international law. The decision to invade, the conduct of the war and occupation and the mechanisms used to administer the country all challenge the international legal community placing it at a crossroads. When can the use of force be justified? What are the limits of military operations? What strength does international criminal law possess in the face of such interventions? How effective is the international regime of human rights in these circumstances? What role does domestic law have to play? How the law now responds and develops in the light of these matters will be of fundamental global importance for the 21st century and an issue of considerable political and legal concern. This book explores this legal territory by examining a number of issues fundamental to the future direction of international law in the War's aftermath. Consideration is also given to the impact on UK law. Both practical and academic perspectives are taken in order to scrutinise key questions and consider the possible trajectories that international law might now follow.

1. Law and Force; 2. The Prohibition of the Use of Force; 3. Invitation and Intervention: Civil Wars and the Use of Force; 4. Self-defence; 5. Collective Self-defence; 6. The Use of Force against Terrorism: a New War for a New Century; 7. The UN and the Use of Force; 8.

Praise for previous edition: “...a comprehensive, meticulously-researched study of contemporary international law governing the use of armed force in international relations...' Andrew Garwood-Gowers, Queensland University of Technology Law Review, Volume 12(2) When this first English language edition of The Law Against War published it quickly established itself as a classic. Detailed, analytically rigorous and comprehensive, it provided an indispensable guide to the legal framework regulating the use of force. Now a decade on the much anticipated new edition brings the work up to date. It looks at new precedents arising from the Arab Spring; the struggle against the "Islamic State" in Iraq and Syria; and the conflicts in Ukraine and Yemen. It also reflects the new doctrinal debates surrounding recent state practice. Previous positions are reconsidered and in some cases revised, notably the question of consensual intervention and the very definition of force, particularly, to accommodate targeted extrajudicial executions and cyber-operations. Finally, the new edition provides detailed coverage of the concept of self-defense, reflecting recent interpretations of the International Court of Justice and the ongoing controversies surrounding its definition and interpretation.