This is GQ…and I want a GQ style answer from anyone versed in international law. The quest is about the perennial US invasion of Iraq. I’ve seen this one bounced about like a beach ball, but I’m not a lawyer…nor versed in international law, treaties, the UN Charter or anything else. Surely there is a real answer to this, a definitive yeah or nay.
Was the invasion of Iraq by the US illegal? If so, how? If not, why not? If there is no definitive answer, why is this the case? If there is no definitive answer then can/will this question ever be resolved?
Hoping for some solid answers to this and not more debate.
No matter how you say it, this could get ugly. But, I will be following this thread 100%. Anyway, here is something that might help you out. It will probably be very hard to get an unbiased cite.
Principle: attacking other countries forbidden by Article 2 No. 4 UN Charter: “… shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. …”
Exception: individual or collective defence against an attack (Article 51) - common interpretations include present and imminent but not potential attack
Exception: actions authorized by UN Security Council (Article 42)
None of the exception applies, so the main rule does.
Ah, if only it were that simple. Saddam was in violation of the terms of the cease fire which ended the first Gulf War. One can credibly argue that the cease fire was null and void at that point.
Hm…well, I have to admit I was hoping for something a bit more authoritative and meaty than this. Its seems a simple enough question.
How about if I rephrase the question? Is there any body of individuals or groups that can speak to this question with authority? If so, who are they and why would they be an authority? Assuming they are so, is there any consensus from this body on the question at hand? What is the consensus? What is the reasoning? Can it be explained so that a lay person such as myself can understand?
The short answer is that there is no real authoritative source of what “international law” is. It is just an abstract concept of what all “civilized” nations believe in. There are some widely adopted treaties out there (e.g. U.N. Charter, Geneva Conventions, Universal Declaration of Human Rights) that are generally considered international law, and other broad concepts that are widely believed to be part of international law. However, there is no real mechanism for international enforcement of international law.
More significantly for your purposes, there is no real body or tribunal which can authoritatively interpret what international law says about a particular situation that is not clearly covered. The only thing that can happen is that countries (either singly, in an ad hoc combination or under the authority of an intergovernmental organization like the U.N. or E.U.) can bring diplomatic, economic or military pressure on other countries that they believe are violating international law.
There is some movement toward international tribunals for some areas of international law, like the various war crimes tribunals and some international trade courts and commissions, but in an area like whether starting a war was justified, there is no real body that can give you a hard answer.
1-I had posted the exact same as FormerMarineGuy’s link in the"Does Iran Have A Right To Nuclear Weapons" thread. I find that to be as comprehensive a site of legal scholars and opinions on this issue as you’re likely to find anywhere on the Internet.
2-I was utterly and completly ignored since most/all agree that indeed, the Iraq invasion was illegal under the UN charter and International Law. It appears from that, and many other a thread where this matter comes up, that some Americans simply cannot accept the fact that their country acted illegaly. Ironically, some of them might even be agaist the war at this point.
3-Any and all justifications for invading, have, at this point in time, shown to be nothing more than a pack lies.
4-Click the link. Read-up and educate yourselves in the matter. It’s made quite clear by any number of greatly different perspectives – all have the same conclusion.
Educate yourselves on this issue. Although time-consuming, it’s free. And beyond that some of the articles are simply fascinating.
With respect Red, I’m not looking for a debate here. I’m looking for a factual answer from an authoritative source. I read your link in the GD thread, and I read it again when FormerMarineGuy posted it. It IS interesting…but its not the factual answer I’m looking for. Or maybe it is and I’m not seeing how that body that produced that site ARE the authorities on this question and can make an authoritative pronouncement on the subject.
I AM trying to fight my ignorance on this Red. However, thus far I have seen nothing that give a factual conclusion that the war was in fact Illegal…or that it was Legal for that matter.
The invasion of Iraq was authorized by Congress, as I am sure you already know. Ergo, it is legal under US law.
That’s as factual as it gets. There is no comparable body under international law that can establish legality or illegality. Opinions, sure, we got lots of those, but none of them have force under law.
There is no factual answer to your question. Not in the sense that “what is the capitol of Virginia” has a factual answer. Only someone with a political agenda will insist that there is one. I’m afraid that this is a debate.
XT, there are any number of experts on that site that spell out for you, how, exactly, the US broke the UN Charter it had signed to uphold.
Now, if your question goes further than that and you’d like to know what repercussions there are/were and how they are to be inforced, I conceed that there are none.
In that particular regard, we’re still at the “might makes right” level. Yes, conceivably there could have been sanctions imposed on the US – clearly, no one nation had the balls to even try to do so.
OTOH, any number of private organizations have been trying to condemn Bush and his cohorts. Yes, odds are obviosly against them and nothing will come of it. Kind of like Kissinger’s case.
PS-Here’s likely the most famous – in terms of the people affiliated with it anyway. But again, it’s worst than and uphill battle, rather walking like a crab.
I think the problem is the inflammatory and loaded word “illegal”. It implies the U.S. has broken some unalterable and recognized “international law” that, were other nations able, she could/would be tried and punished for. She is now an outlaw nation. If this is what you are asking/meaning by is the war illegal the GQ answer is definitively “NO” because of** Billdo’s ** excellent post - which I think nailed the GQ answer:
The short answer is that there is no real authoritative source of what “international law” is. It is just an abstract concept of what all “civilized” nations believe in. There are some widely adopted treaties out there (e.g. U.N. Charter, Geneva Conventions, Universal Declaration of Human Rights) that are generally considered international law, and other broad concepts that are widely believed to be part of international law. However, there is no real mechanism for international enforcement of international law.
A good ‘fer instance’ example is Kosovo Intervention, which violated the UN Charter but probably not International Law.
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/glennonll.htm
Now, if you mean “illegal” to mean has the “U.S. invasion violated Treaties Obligations to which it is a Party” … specifically in this case the U.N. Charter … then I think that is a more open question.
