In order to understand the “Second Iraq War”, to follow argumentation of both sides and to
deliver an appropriate judgment, firstly it is necessary to prove historical facts that have shaped
given situation.
Saddam Hussein came formally to power in July 1979 as a President and Chairman of the
Revolutionary Command Council. Hussein had the absolute power in Iraq and His control of the
military and all state institutions was beyond question. Under his leadership Iraq has never been a
democratic, peaceful state: systematically violated laws and human rights, mass killings, tortures
and political imprisonment led to a crisis which has become a subject of the dispute on international
stage till nowadays.
One of the conflicts, Hussein was involved in, was the war with Iran 1980-1988 for the
control over the waterway Shatt al-Arab. This warfare has grown from a much wider background:
Kurdish and Shiites problem, religious conflict, personal enmity between Hussein and Ayatollah
Komeini and Iraq’s gain to replace Iran’s leading position in the Arab world. As a result of the
conflict, where chemical and biological weapons were used, died and were wounded hundreds
thousands of people
The next aggressive step of Hussein’s government was the invasion of Kuwait in August
1990 behind an accusation that the state is stealing oil from Rumailah Fields and establishes
military bases within the Iraqi territory. An immediate reaction on the attack resulted in
international1 demanding of withdrawal of the Iraqi army from Kuwait by issuing several
resolutions2 against Iraq. When Saddam Hussein refused to fulfill their obligations the United
Nations Security Council put economic sanctions on Iraq (THE SC RESOLUTION 661). In
September 1990 the Security Council authorized United Nations Member States cooperating with
Kuwait government “to use necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 and all
subsequent relevant resolutions” in order to restore peace (THE SC RESOLUTION 678). Hussein
refused to accomplish also this obligation and only the military operation “Dessert Storm” brought
the war between Iraq and Kuwait to the end (historyguy.com).
[...]
Table of Contents
1. Historical and legal background
2. Application
3. Arguments of the Iraqi government
3.1. Crimes against peace and security
3.2. No proof of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
3.3. The use of armed forces without legal authorization
3.4. Humanitarian crisis
3.4.1. Failure to ensuring food and medical supplies
3.4.2. Torture and prison abuses
3.4.3. Destruction of object indispensable to the survival of the civilian population and failure to maintain order and cultural property
4. Arguments of the US American government
4.1 Protection of world’s peace
4.2 Weapon of mass destruction as a principal reasons for the US invasion
4.3. Legal authorization for military operation and the doctrine of “Preventive War”
4.4. Human rights abuses
4.4.1 False allegations suggested by Iraq against the USA
4.4.2 Iraqi practices of genocide, torture and prison abuses
5. Proposal of a judgment
Objectives and Core Themes
This work aims to evaluate the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq by presenting the conflicting legal arguments of the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America. Through an analysis of international law, UN resolutions, and human rights reports, the research seeks to construct a formal, hypothetical judgment from the International Court of Justice regarding the legality of the military intervention.
- Legal legitimacy of the US invasion under international law
- The role and interpretation of UN Security Council resolutions
- Human rights violations and humanitarian impact during the conflict
- Evaluation of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as a justification for war
- The doctrine of "Preventive War" and its consistency with the UN Charter
Excerpt from the Book
3.3. The use of armed forces without legal authorization
International law quite clearly states when military force is allowed and when forbidden. Principally it is prohibited to use military force against the territorial integrity of another state (THE CHARTER OF THE UN CHAPTER I ART. 2.4). The Charter of the United Nations states that the Security Council, and not an individual member of the UN, is who shall “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken (…) to maintain or restore international peace and security” (ibid. CHAPTER VII ART. 39, ALSO VIDE: ART. 24, 25, 39, 41 AND 42). Moreover, the United States declared, that its invasion against Iraq was in the name of the United Nations which obviously was not true. As a permanent member of the Security Council, the USA should strictly execute all obligations and know that all unilaterally actions without obtaining an approval from the Security Council are prohibited. Even Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, admitted that the American invasion was an illegal act (news.bbc.co.uk).
Summary of Chapters
1. Historical and legal background: Provides an overview of Saddam Hussein's regime, the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait, and the geopolitical tensions leading up to 2003.
2. Application: Outlines the formal legal application filed by the Republic of Iraq to the International Court of Justice regarding the invasion.
3. Arguments of the Iraqi government: Presents the Iraqi perspective, focusing on violations of sovereignty, absence of WMDs, and humanitarian crises caused by the invasion.
4. Arguments of the US American government: Details the US justifications for the war, centering on the protection of world peace, the removal of WMDs, and the fight against terrorism.
5. Proposal of a judgment: Concludes the study by drafting a hypothetical verdict from the International Court of Justice based on the preceding arguments.
Keywords
International Law, Iraq War, United Nations, Security Council, Sovereignty, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Human Rights, Preventive War, Military Invasion, Humanitarian Crisis, Geneva Convention, International Court of Justice, Terrorism, Occupation, Conflict Resolution
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the legality of the 2003 US military invasion of Iraq by analyzing the conflicting claims of both the Iraqi and American governments within the framework of international law.
What are the primary thematic areas covered in the work?
Key themes include the interpretation of UN Security Council resolutions, the validity of the "preventive war" doctrine, alleged human rights abuses, and the status of weapons of mass destruction in pre-war Iraq.
What is the ultimate goal of the document?
The primary goal is to propose a hypothetical, reasoned judgment of the International Court of Justice to determine whether the 2003 invasion constituted an illegal act of aggression.
Which scientific or analytical method is utilized?
The author employs a legal analysis method, comparing state actions and arguments against international treaties, such as the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Rome Statute.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body covers historical context, the formal application to the ICJ, the specific arguments of both conflicting parties regarding security and human rights, and a final proposal for a court ruling.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Essential keywords include International Law, Iraq War, UN Charter, Sovereignty, Human Rights, Preventive War, and International Court of Justice.
How does the author treat the US argument of "Preventive War"?
The author analyzes it by contrasting the Bush administration's "National Security Strategy" with the established provisions of Article 51 of the UN Charter, ultimately challenging the legal legitimacy of the doctrine.
What specific evidence does the author highlight regarding WMDs?
The author cites reports from UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, and various inspectors to argue that there was insufficient evidence of active WMD production or storage in Iraq at the time of the 2003 invasion.
What is the significance of the "Proposal of a judgment" section?
It serves as the analytical conclusion where the author synthesizes the legal arguments to deliver a formal, unanimous recommendation for an ICJ verdict that declares the invasion an illegal act of aggression.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Elzbieta Szumanska (Autor:in), 2008, Iraq against the United States of America (events 2003-2004), München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/116944
