Legality of Iraq Invasion - Coursework Example

Legality of Iraq Invasion The invasion of Iraq by the combined effort of military troops from four s in 2003 has had many positions held by critics as well as proponents of the war. These states which included mainly the United States of America, the United Kingdom and a small contingent of troops each form Australia and Poland invaded and overthrew Saddam Hussein in 21 days. Since then, debate has been extensive on the legal position of the action of the involved countries actions in terms of international law. The most important of these debates has been the negative result of the initial allegations made that Iraq possessed weapons of mass of mass destruction. This “possession” posed serious threats to not only the security of the involved states but also that of their allies. These allegations prompted the United Nations to pass Resolution 1441 through its Security Council in 2002, which demanded Iraq to completely cooperate with weapon inspectors. These inspectors would act to verify that Iraq had no possession of the alleged weapons of mass destruction. Subsequently, the findings of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) was allowed access to perform the inspections to Iraq but found no evidence of presence of weapons of mass destruction. However, the verification report could not unearth the sincerity of Iraq’s declaration on weapons (Cashman 2007 94). Justification Weapon Investigation Inadequacy The findings of the investigations could not be relied by the suspicious Bush administration. Backed by the mentioned allies, the United States of America invaded and occupied Iraq eventually capturing President Saddam Hussein. The trial of Saddam Hussein in an Iraqi court ended in an execution sentence. Insurgency, violence and strife between various groups and against the coalition troops worsened the situation with the emergence of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The combat operations of the military coalition to sweep out insurgency became more of war against terror in the later days of the operations. Many Iraqis were displaced, deaths reported and a serious humanitarian crisis was looming (Hendrickson & Tucker 2005 102-105). The need for occupation of Iraq was a requirement by international law which would allow return of normalcy to the state. The United States of America exercised a dominant role with assistance of other combined forces and the Iraqi security forces. According to the Hague Convention Article 42, a country is occupied if it is “under the authority of a hostile army.” International humanitarian law demands that the occupying nation’s operations should be maintained up to the point at which the host can form a government that is legitimate. The legality of the occupation agreement had to become effective with the authorization of the Iraqi government (Israel, 2004, 93-102). Terrorism Even though the initial course of the invasion was pegged on the possession of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam’s regime, it was hard to ascertain if the regime was not supporting terror. A letter unraveled by the CIA purporting to be communication between the regime and the terrorist group was an important piece of evidence used by the US government. Opposition Self Defense Chapter VII of the agreement regarding war regulations by international community, both the United States of America and the United Kingdom were barred from the invasion by the provisions of the chapter. The said provisions demand that a nation can only declare war on another if it is in individual or collective self defense (Weeks, 2009, p39-97). Alternatively, the chapter provides that the Security Council resolution to authorize the same be made available (WorldPress, nd). Under the circumstances surrounding the war, it is apparent that a breach of international law was exercised by the multinational forces involved in the war. Self defense was not a factor since Iraq had not attacked any of the multinational forces or any of their allies to amount to a justification of an invasion. The notion that the Iraqi regime had connections with the infamous Al-Qaeda and hence attribute the September 11th attacks to the regime, were a different thing all together. Evidence could not be availed to attest to the allegations and action on self defense could not be sustained. The UN Security Council Resolution The members of the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution to perform new inspections to find and subsequently eliminate alleged weapons of mass destruction possessed by Iraq (WorldPress, nd). Since Iraq accepted the new call for new inspections, the justification of an attack could therefore not be found within the context of the resolution (WorldPress, nd). British Attorney General’s Advice Prior to War In his secret legal advice to the prime minister regarding legality in a British involvement in the US- led war in Iraq, the British attorney general gave insights that an invasion would be conditional. Attorney General Lord Goldsmith meant that a regime change in Iraq was not admissible by law, but a humanitarian course would be even in the absence of a resolution by the United Nations Security Council. Bearing in mind that the Iraqi government had not refused to cooperate and the absence of a resolution to allow invasion by the Security Council, he cautioned the move as a delicate justification had to be made. He stressed the need to ensure safety of legal action in pushing the Security Council to pass the resolution. This was because the Hague Resolution 1441 barred any invasions without the authorization of the Security Council. However, the attorney general changed his hard stand, a few hours to the invasion (WorldPress, nd). Commission of Inquiry of Dutch Government The United States of America requested for Dutch support in the invasion but the Dutch were reluctant. An independent commission of inquiry was set up by the Netherlands government in 2003 and headed by Netherlands Supreme Court judge Willibrord Davids to investigate the legality of the US-led invasion of Iraq. The independent commission of inquiry found out that the invasion violated the provisions of international law. The United States of America highly advocated the platform of a needed regime change in Iraq to ensure international security which the commission found baseless (Taylor, nd, Para 4). Center for Constitutional Rights and Greenpeace and International Opinion of the Iraqi War The New York based organization Centre for Constitutional Rights joined by the Greenpeace issued a plea to the UN prior to the invasion in protest to the impending attack on Iraq. The two organizations wanted the UN to convene a General Assembly Emergency Special Session (ESS) for the UN to protect its core principles of establishment in stopping the imminent attack on Iraq by the United States of America and the other multinational forces. Their fears were that the illegal invasion could only bring division to the United Nations (Davis, 2006, p32-67). On the other hand, the Germany Federal Administration Court in 2005 ruled with regard to the Iraq invasion by the US and other multinational allies to have grave concerns in international laws. Although the court did not label the invasion as an outright illegality, the decision shows nothing far from the same (Sifry & Cerf 2007105-174). Habbush Letter Fabrication Also variously known as Habbush memo, was a handwritten communication used between General Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti and Saddam Hussein. The alleged communication was obtained by USA intelligence to show that there was a link between Saddam’s regime with the terror group Al-Qaeda (Hendrickson & Tucker, 2005). It was alleged that the memo could attest to the use of force by the USA and allied other multinational allies to apply force to curb terrorism. It has since appeared that the letter has been a forgery whose legal base can’t be used against the parties. The CIA and White House were involved in a tussle in claiming the origin of the memo or whether it was a forgery. Some corners of criticism claimed that the White House had ordered the fabrication to come up with a course of the invasion. Even though the authenticity of the document could not be practically established, there was some backing from the Iraqi’s Interim Prime Minister’s office. International Legal Experts Analysis In March 2003, prominent legal experts punched holes in the legality of the US invasion of Iraq. The war was to be waged on Iraq without any clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council. This was a violation of the provisions of the resolutions of the Council that prohibit the blatant use of force on a country. From their interpretation, the majority of the experts had made it clear that not a single loophole in the provisions of the Resolution would enable the USA to continue with an invasion. They also pointed out that there was no authority that expressly had power to stop the USA from launching an invasion. They therefore foresaw a lot of problems with the USA dealings with other world powers. Military Intervention versus Diplomatic Solution There were far reaching sentiments on the possible use of diplomacy in place of force to solve the stalemate the ensued the invasion of Iraq. Diplomacy rules suggest that war should be reserved for use in failed attempts to use diplomacy and dialogue. The French government was a huge proponent of the use of diplomatic means to find a solution. Some even argued that war in the region would assist the Al-Qaeda to regroup and recruit. On the issue of civilian sufferings experienced by the state of war that could be solved otherwise, the opponents foresaw trouble for the impoverished civilians. Opposition on this issue took a different direction since the two states stands compromised the Franco-American relations (Hendrickson & Tucker, 2005, 136-149). Conclusion According to international statutes (UN Charter Article 2 (4)), all nations are prohibited from using force against others. It is only under two conditions that use of force by one state against another may be justified; if such force is used in self defense (Aricle 51) and when it is used to protect international security and peace (Chapter VII) under the direct authorization of the UN Security Council. In spite of the views of various spectators, justification of the US-Iraq war in the light of international law must meet at least one of these minimum requirements. Since the UN Security Council did not explicitly justify the war through its numerous resolutions concerning Iraq, one of the two conditions is ultimately disqualified. Yet again the second condition is not met since no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq as it was initially claimed by the Bush administration which means that the country was not a threat to the US. In view of the facts presented above, it may well be concluded under international law that the war was far from justified. References Cashman G. & Robinson L. C., (2007). An Introduction to the Causes of War: Patterns of Interstate Conflict from World War I to Iraq. Rowan and Littlefied Publishers, UK. Cordesman H. A. & Sullivan D. W., (2007 ). Salvaging American Defense: The Challenge of Strategic Overstretch. Greenwood Publishing Group, Washington, USA. Davis J. (2006). Presidential policies and the road to the second Iraq war: From Forty One to Forty Three. Ashgate Publishing LTD, UK. Hendrickson D. C. & Tucker R. W (2005). Revisions in Need of Revising: What Went Wrong in the Iraq War? USA. Israel R., (2004). The Iraq war: hidden agendas and Babylonian intrigue : the regional impact on Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis and Arab. Sussex Academic Press, USA. Sifry M. L. & Cerf C., (2007). Iraq War Reader: History, Documents, Opinions.USA. Taylor R. S., (n.d). “The United Nations International Law and the War in Iraq”, World Press Review. Retrieved from: http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/ Weeks A. L., (2009). The Choice of War: The Iraq War and the Just War Tradition. ABC-CLIO, USA. WorldPress (nd) The United Nations, International law and the War in Iraq , Viewed 16th August, 2010 http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/ Read More