Maybe the US coalition will go to war without UN permission (hope not).
Anyway, are there any wars in history that the USA has participated in, without first obtaining UN permission, or would this be a first? eg Panama ??
<smartarse filter> Obviously I am referring to dates after the formation of the UN. </smartarse filter>
Vietnam
Grenada
Actions against Lybia and Sudan
Were there any UN resolutions about Afganistan?
The United States is a sovereign country. It does not need, nor require “permission” from the UN to do anything.
“Permission?” Wrong term, I think. Try “backing” or “agreement” or at least “acquiescence.” But not “permission.” No, definitely not that word.
(Why do I want to say, “We don’t need no stinking badges?”)
Neither Panama nor Grenada could qualify as “going to war.” Both were brief ‘flexings of the muscles.’ The same can be said for Sudan and the one-time bombing of Libyan targets.
The big one is Vietnam. Yeah, we went there. No, the UN didn’t like it. Yeah, we kicked ass. Yeah, we got our asses kicked. It was the war of politics. It was an object lesson – subject: how NOT to fight a war.
Of course, officially, the Vietnam “conflict” wasn’t even a war. Something over 50,000 dead Americans and an in-country force of over a half-million (at the peak) somehow doesn’t qualify, I guess.
Just be careful about throwing around that “P” word, eh?
Yep, sorry - was not sure what the correct term was.
Is the correct term ‘resolution’? - that which is required for a country to invade without breaking international law.
Perhaps this wording uses the correct terminology.
Have there been any invasions by USA that did not first have a UN resolution?
The problem is assuming that there is really any such thing as “international law.” There is no such thing. It’s nice to have a UN resolution in favor of a military action, and even better to have the UN involved in the action itself, (e.g. the Korean war) because it adds a sense of legitimacy to the action. You have a bunch of countries saying, in an official capacity, “we think this would be a good idea,” and in some cases, “we’ll even help.” If a major country such as the US embarks on a major military campaign without the support of the UN, it makes it more difficult for the US to be a player in international politics, simply because it likely means the US is acting against the wishes of other UN members, which annoys them. But there would be nothing “illegal” about it, as the UN is just a forum for international agreements; it has no extra-national power over the US.
One can argue endlessly over whether this action or that constituted an “invasion”. But at least four actions come to mind that generally went by that name–the invasions of Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War, of Grenada in 1983, and of Panama (to remove and arrest Noriega) in 1990.
Keep in mind that, during the Cold War, the United States would have been lucky to get UN Security Council approval to allow our troops to go to the bathroom, much less launch an invasion. (The exception occurred in Korea because the Soviets were boycotting.) The concept that only UN appoval can legitimize a military action is a relatively recent conceit.
Thanks jklann.
The US hasn’t been in a declared war since the UN was established. It has, of course, resorted to the US of force.
There’s no general rule that the US (or anyone else) needs UN “permission” (or a resolution, or approval, or any other act) before resorting to the use of force. The UN charter recognises a right to resort to force in self defence, and it recognises the role of “regional security orgnisations” or some such phrase.
There’s only a problem if a state resorts to force in breach of the requirements of the UN charter - as, e.g., when Iraq annexed Kuwait.
I think the question probably should be “has the US resorted to force in breach of the requirements of the UN Charter”?
The answer to the OP is obviously “yes.” The Vietnam War was certainly a war and was not “permitted” by the UN. Smaller conflicts like Panama and Grenada and the invasion of the Dominican Republic are also certainly “wars,” albeit very small ones.
And of course, all the wars prior to 1945 were fought without a UN resolution, since there was no UN. 
Don’t forget the war against Nicaragua in the 80’s. Again, not declared, and in most cases unacknowledged, but I think putting mines in someone’s harbor is pretty much an act of war.
They also used force in Bosnia with NATO backing and not UN backing. (Note in this case the French did not ask for a UN resolution, and also note that military intervention would benefit them.)
Many Panamanians would disagree with that.
Interesting how you limited the question to the USA. Why not other UN members? I’d be curious to know…
Since the starting of the UN, are there any wars in history that any UN member has participated in, without first obtaining UN permission?
Examples to get you going: The Iran/Iraq wars, Russian invasion of Afghanistan, Falklands/Malvinas war, the Libya/Chad war…
Looks like for the most part the majority of wars/invasions were done without UN approval/permission/resoution.
-mok
The only reason I asked about USA, was in the context of the current situation with Iraq - I wanted to be informed about precedents.
The last war against Iraq was UN sanctioned, wasnt it?
It would also be interested to know in what cases the UK has resorted to military force in another country without UN sanction.
Malvides/Falkland Islands ring a bell?
Don’t forget Bay of Pigs (U.S. invasion of Cuba).
Although the U.S. has no binding obligation to heed the U.N. or international law, it really is in our interest to do so. If we encourage and abide by a consistent, impartial set of rules that all nations are expected to follow, we will have a lot more international credibility with regards to situations like Iraq. As it stands now, for us to justify an invasion of Iraq with the fact that they have invaded Kuwait and haven’t respected U.N. resolutions rings pretty hollow, given the simultaneous rhetoric of how the U.N. can’t tell us what to do. Either we value international law or we don’t.[/hijack]
And the UN is “a consistent, impartial” outfit? Hah!
FYI
The action in Afghanistan had UN support as well as NATO support.
IMHO
The war in vietnam was a political war. Winning militarily was moot there.
The war In afghanistan was a propaganda war. winning militarily was a bonus. The show of strngth and resolve was more important.
The future war in Iraq is going to both a political and propaganda war. Winning militarily is crucial. swift victory is essential.
Of course not. It’s a representative body. You know, like Congress.