This essay has been submitted by a law student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Was The Invasion Of Iraq Legal International Law Essay
War on Iraq began on March 20, 2003 by a multinational force led by troops from mainly the United States and the United Kingdom as well as other countries. Before the war, the governments of the U.S. and the UK claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to their security and that of their coalition allies. But United Nations weapons inspectors found no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction , giving support to earlier criticism of poor intelligence on the subject.
US Administration presented before and after fall Baghdad a number of justifications to persuade the world that war on Iraq was legal. These justifications include many allegations including for instance but not limited; government of former president Saddam Husein has continued not to apply resolutions of UN relating to permit to inspection committees to practice its mission to find out weapons of mass destruction; government of former president Saddam Husein went on to make and have " weapons of mass destruction" and non cooperation of Iraqi leadership in apply 19 resolution of UN in respect with giving full data about possession of " weapons of mass destruction; government of former president Saddam Husein has close relations with Al-Qaeda organization and Osma Bin Ladin as well as other terrorist groups which form danger on security and stability of the world and to dissemination freedom and democracy in the Middle East area, lastly throwing away of Saddam regime and occupation Baghdad for oil.
Role of Security Council during Threats to International Peace and Security
The role of the Security Council lies in protection and ensuring peace and security in all over the world. Paragraph 1 of Article 24 of the UN Charter indicates states:
In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf'' (United Nations).
In accordance with those responsibility to ensure security and peace among the countries of the world, the Security Council must decide appropriate acts and resolutions which maintain the peace, stability and security over all countries even the super powers including for instance, US, UK, Russia etc ……. When the Security Council decides under authorized powers, hence its decisions shall be binding on all countries (Adam P. Tait. 2005).
Plans of US to attack Iraq
After attacks of September 11, President Bush went to the United Nations on September 12, 2002 focusing on Iraq’s issue in respect to obstructionism and defiance of the international community. After two months, the Security Council unanimously issued resolution No. 1441, which ordered Iraq to comply with resolutions released before. Those resolutions were related to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles which form major risk on international peace and security. Most importantly, the resolution gave Iraq a final chance to apply obligations. Actually, Iraq obeyed to those resolutions; hence Iraq allowed inspectors to enter the country (Adam P. Tait. 2005).
The US and UK tried to persuade the Security Council to release resolutions allowing the use of force against Iraq on March 2003 due to its ongoing disregard of previous resolutions. Both US and UK attempted to persuade their partners on the Council; hence the United States formed a coalition of nations aiming to destroy Iraqi resistance and took control of the nation (Adam P. Tait. 2005).
Starting from September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, it was claimed that the Baghdad regime supported and had ties to the Al Qaeda organization and other terrorist groups. US administration charged Iraq that it had provided technical assistance to Al Qaeda to help it in manufacturing chemical weapons. Moreover, Iraq has terrorist factions called the Ansar al-Islam which it was supposed that it has relations with Al Qaeda and there are relations with the Iraqi regime ( Raymond W. Copson. 2003).
US government had attempted to gain international support for its policy, the Administration stressed that Iraq violated and breached resolution No. 17 of U.N. Security Council resolutions and also Resolution 1441 of November 8, 2002. Moreover, US and UK claimed that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and it has intention to produce nuclear weapons (Raymond W. Copson. 2003).
Application of Diplomatic Instruments in Support of the War.
The United States addressed to countries a call requesting to cut diplomatic relations with Iraq, expel Iraqi diplomats and freeze their interests before the invasion of the Iraq. Officials said that Saddam regime should be changed and replaced the liberty instead of dictatorship and injustice. There were some countries obeyed the orders of United States. Among of those countries was Australia which expelled the Iraqi diplomats and close the embassy. Other counties expelled individual diplomats suspected of espionage and made embassies were open. The United States ordered other countries to make Iraqi assets to do the same the acts (Raymond W. Copson. 2003).
Lastly , United .States officials used power and firm diplomatic pressure to cut any foreign promote and cut any interests with Iraq. But the U.S. government received rejection from Russia Administration, as well as United States failed to prevent Russian firms from selling military equipments to Iraq, hence it violated United Nations resolutions. US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld On March 28, accused the government of Syria of hostile acts due to its delivery of military goods, including night vision goggles, across the Syrian border to Iraq ( Raymond W. Copson. 2003).
Legality of the Invasion of Iraq
This section of the paper will shows totally reality of the invasion and was invasion of Iraq was legal or not. There are many officials and experts told serious statements showing true sense of the invasion.
BBC Radio made an interview with the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan on September 15, 2004 asking him about the invasion of Iraq. He said that the military attack against Iraq on March of 2003 was illegal. Even though the resolution to topple Saddam Hussein from power was under customary international law. Likely that Annan’s declaration left great a echo in many several nations particularly Russia, France, and Germany as well as some international legal scholars.
On the other hand, the US and the UK confirmed that the action was justified in accordance with international law as well as coalition among many countries along with combined effect of UN Security Council resolutions in respect to Iraq ( Adam P. Tait. 2005).
Nick Grief, Professor of law at Bournemouth University and a specialist in international law was asked on was the war in Iraq legal?. He said that
"I never believed that this war was justified. I always thought a second resolution expressly authorizing the use of force was necessary. I have never been persuaded by the argument that somehow Iraq's material breach of the ceasefire resolution revived the authorization in UN resolution 678 issued in 1990. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/mar/02/uk.internationaleducationnews
Some people said that US tried to justify its actions and matters under international law. It had covered its motivations, when it started the Iraq War in 2003. The legal justification for the war given by the United States was far from persuasive, but it is hardly self-evident that it should be dismissed as totally implausible from the start. The United States submitted evidence that Iraq had possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. In the case of the United States government has knowledge about factual preconditions for the use of force against Iraq were not existent when it started the war. Accordingly, it should be said that Iraq War was illegal, regardless of whether or not we accept the justification submitted by the United States. By and large, although a policy decision is presumed to be reasonable as long as it is supported by sufficient information to meet legal requirements; it don't need to be based on scientific findings (Yoshiaki Sato, 2006).
Witnesses on the age
It is known that international laws related to the war are deem ed both preventive wars and preemptive strikes (Evan Augustine Peterson, 2004). There was overwhelming consensus of international law experts who said that Annan's opinion about the invasion of Iraq was correct due to the war was not illegal as well as opinion of the “Coalition of the Willing’s" leaders . The 2003 war erupted under allegation removal of weapons of mass destruction. In the same time, UN inspectors didn't find or explore any of them. It is said that the basic objective of the war was to topple of Saddam regime (Chibli Mallat.2009).
In witness thereof, at the United Nations Session held in Cuba. It was announced that United States and British plans related to war on Iraq. Bruno Rodriguez, Cuban ambassador to the UN, claimed that:
The United States is the super-power in the world. It attempted to replace law of the jungle for international law. He mentioned that Washington’s pre-emptive war doctrine as a flagrant violation of the UN Charter. The Cuban diplomat expressed Cuba’s opinion that Iraq does not form a threat and it was cooperating with inspections. Rodriguez warned that a war would have devastating consequences for the entire world primarily for poor Countries that already pay a high price for oil. He said that the current war is a war for oil and economic domination (Fight Pecism , 2003).
The False Arguments for War
Before the invasion, the US and the UK resorted to the UN Security Council to authorize them to use force against Iraq. Whereas they stressed that force was the best solution to prevent the Iraqi government from producing or using weapons of mass destruction. Man of members of the Council were doubtful.
United States Administration and the United Kingdom were full aware before the war that the allegation related to mass destruction weapons in Iraq was not strong or even non-existent. Evidences confirmed that Bush administration officials discussed a war against Iraq in early 2001 without mention the weapons of mass destruction. In addition that, president Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair discussed an attack on Iraq at the White House on September 20, 2001. The two countries also alleged that all legitimate actions were acted under article 51 of the UN Charter as self defence (Global Policy Forum).
Second allegation was Washington also claimed that Saddam Hussein had relations with Al Qaeda and provided helping and support to al-Qaeda and promoting international terrorism as well as threat the United States and its interests. Later, it was showed by investigation of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the US Senate which said that all these allegations had no basis in fact and totally incorrect.
Lastly, the US and the UK placed humanitarian arguments including for instance liberating and freedom of the Iraqi people from dictatorship of Saddam Hussein as well as his abuses for human rights. Commentary on this point, did the war was erupted by United States and United Kingdom brought freedom and democracy in Iraq. Even if Washington and United Kingdom were concerned about this issue, why they cooperated with Saddam and provided him with arms, aids before (Global Policy Forum).
Finally, this paper discussed and examined the hidden news and information on the invasion of the Iraq showing evidences, proofs and facts on the tongues of the officials and political experts. The US combined and formed coalition to claim that the invasion was legal. It justified that it went to the Iraq for liberty and human rights. Furthermore, US Officials mentioned many allegations and claims to justify the US stance.
In fact, US Administration trigger this war to remove and topple Saddam Hussein's regime and getting oil. There is no doubt that the invasion was not legal due to UN Security Council didn't express expressly and give authorization to use force under its resolutions. The acts against Iraq resulted troublesome dilemma for the United Nations and the Security Council and weakened its position and powers due to illegal invasion on Iraq. All allegations and claims of US Administration were totally false in consideration of facts and evidences provided by leading political experts and officials.
Cite This Essay
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below: