Iraq War: International Law Violation Or Justification?

The legality of the Iraq War is a highly contested topic, with many legal experts and world leaders arguing that the war was illegal and violated the UN charter. The UN charter states that all members must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. However, the US and UK governments argued that the invasion was legal and was authorised by existing UN Security Council resolutions. The debate centres on whether the invasion was an unprovoked assault on an independent country that breached international law, or if the UN Security Council authorised the invasion.

Did the US and UK violate the UN Charter?

The United Nations Charter is the foundational treaty of the United Nations. It establishes the purposes, governing structure, and overall framework of the UN system. The UN Charter mandates the UN and its member states to maintain international peace and security, uphold international law, and refrain from the use of armed force except when acting in self-defence after an armed attack by another state, or when the Security Council authorises it.

The legality of the Iraq War is a contested topic that spans both domestic and international law. Many legal experts and world leaders have argued that the war violated the United Nations Charter. The UN Security Council has the ability to rule on the legality of the war but has not been asked to do so by any UN member nation. Despite this, the UN General Assembly may ask the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to give an 'advisory opinion' or 'judgement' on the legality of the war.

US and UK officials have argued that the invasion was already authorised under existing UN Security Council resolutions regarding the 1991 Gulf War, the subsequent ceasefire, and later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs. Critics of the invasion, including former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, have challenged these assertions, arguing that an additional Security Council resolution would have been necessary to specifically authorise the invasion. They argue that the Security Council may only authorise the use of force against an "aggressor" in the interests of preserving peace, whereas the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not provoked by any aggressive military action.

In the UK, John Chilcot, chairman of the Iraq Inquiry, concluded that the process of identifying the legal basis for the invasion of Iraq was unsatisfactory and that the actions of the US and the UK undermined the authority of the United Nations. John Prescott, Deputy Prime Minister to Tony Blair, has also argued that the invasion of Iraq lacked legality. In the US, Barack Obama launched drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, and Syria, none of which had mounted an armed attack against the US or any other UN member country. Donald Trump bombed Syria and Iraq and threatened to attack North Korea, also violating the UN Charter.

Did the US and UK violate international humanitarian law?

The legality of the Iraq War is a highly contested topic, with arguments spanning both domestic and international law. While political leaders in the US and the UK who supported the invasion of Iraq have claimed that the war was legal, many legal experts and other world leaders have argued that the war lacked justification and violated the United Nations charter.

Arguments that the US and UK violated international humanitarian law

Firstly, in a 2005 paper, Kramer and Michalowski argued that the war "violated the UN Charter and international humanitarian law". This is supported by the findings of the Davids Commission inquiry, an independent legal investigation conducted by the Dutch government, which concluded that the invasion of Iraq had "no basis in international law". The inquiry also found that UN Resolution 1441 did not authorise individual member states to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with Security Council resolutions.

Secondly, the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated in 2004 that the war was "illegal", as it was "not in accordance with the UN charter". This was further supported by the statement of the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva, which concluded that the invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defence against armed attack nor sanctioned by a UN Security Council resolution authorising the use of force, and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression.

Thirdly, critics of the invasion have argued that an additional Security Council resolution specifically authorising the invasion would have been necessary, which the US and UK failed to obtain. This is supported by the fact that the Security Council refused to provide the US with an authorisation to use force, instead giving UN inspectors more time to finish their work. Despite this, the US and UK proceeded with the invasion, abandoning their quest for UN authorisation.

Finally, the US-led attack against Iraq undermined the established Security Council authority in the realm of war and peace. The Bush administration sought to justify its illegal actions based on Security Council Resolution 678, a 1990 resolution that authorised the use of "all necessary means" to uphold previous resolutions related to Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait. While this justification may be relevant to the 1991 Gulf War, it is considered sophistry in relation to the 2003 attack.

Arguments that the US and UK did not violate international humanitarian law

On the other hand, US and UK officials have argued that the invasion was already authorised under existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the 1991 Gulf War, the subsequent ceasefire (660, 678), and later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs (1441). They characterised the invasion as a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities rather than a war of aggression.

Additionally, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, the US and its coalition allies reserved the right to self-defence, citing the 1993 assassination attempt on former US President George H. W. Bush and Iraq's firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire no-fly zones. The US also cited Iraq's offensive against the city of Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan as a violation of UNSC Resolution 688, prohibiting the repression of Iraq's ethnic minorities.

In conclusion, while there are strong arguments on both sides, the majority of sources suggest that the US and UK violated international humanitarian law during the Iraq War.

Did the US and UK have justification for the Iraq War?

The legality of the Iraq War is a highly contested topic that spans both domestic and international law. Political leaders in the US and the UK who supported the invasion of Iraq have claimed that the war was legal. However, many legal experts and other world leaders, including the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, have argued that the war lacked justification and violated the United Nations charter.

Arguments for Legality

US and UK officials have argued that the invasion was already authorized under existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the 1991 Gulf War, the subsequent ceasefire (660, 678), and later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs (1441). They characterized the invasion as a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities. According to an opinion offered by the Attorney General for England and Wales, Lord Goldsmith, Resolution 1441 in combination with the earlier resolutions 678 and 687 justified the use of force against Iraq.

Arguments Against Legality

Critics of the invasion, including John Chilcot, chairman of the Iraq Inquiry, have challenged the assertion that existing resolutions authorized the invasion. They argue that an additional Security Council resolution specifically authorizing the use of force would have been necessary. In September 2004, Kofi Annan stated, "I have indicated that it is not in accordance with the UN charter. From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal." The UN Security Council theoretically has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but the US and the UK have veto power in the Security Council, so action is highly improbable.

An independent commission of inquiry set up by the Dutch government also concluded that the invasion violated international law. The investigation, led by former Netherlands Supreme Court president Willibrord Davids, found that the notion of "regime change" had "no basis in international law" and that UN resolutions in the 1990s did not provide authority for the invasion.

In summary, while US and UK political leaders argued that the Iraq War was legal, this position is disputed by many legal experts and world leaders, who contend that the war lacked proper authorization and violated the UN charter.

Did the US and UK act in self-defence?

The question of whether the US and UK acted in self-defence during the Iraq War is a highly contested topic.

The US and UK governments, along with other allies, argued that the invasion was legal and justified under the right to self-defence as outlined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. They cited the 1993 assassination attempt on former US President George H. W. Bush, the firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire no-fly zones, and Iraq's offensive against the city of Irbil in violation of UNSC Resolution 688.

However, this legal rationale has been deemed untenable by some international legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, the National Lawyers' Guild, and a group of 31 Canadian law professors. They argue that the invasion was not supported by a UN resolution and was therefore illegal.

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld questioned how to initiate a US-Iraq War, listing multiple possible justifications, including "dispute over WMD inspections." The Bush administration spent over a year outlining the dangers posed by Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and its support for terrorism, including ties to al-Qaeda. However, no WMD stockpiles were ever found in Iraq, and the 9/11 Commission concluded in 2004 that there was no credible evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda.

The legality of the Iraq War continues to be debated, with critics arguing that the US and UK failed to obtain the necessary UN Security Council resolution specifically authorizing the invasion. The UN Security Council has the authority to rule on the legality of the war but has not been asked to do so by any UN member nation.

Did the US and UK have UN Security Council authorisation?

The legality of the Iraq War is a highly contested topic. Political leaders in the US and the UK who supported the invasion of Iraq have claimed that the war was legal. However, many legal experts, other world leaders, and critics of the invasion have argued that the war lacked justification and violated the United Nations charter.

US and UK officials have argued that the invasion was already authorized under existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the first Persian Gulf War and the subsequent ceasefire (660, 678), and to later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs (1441). Resolution 678, for example, authorizes UN Member States to:

> use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.

However, critics of the invasion—including the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan—have challenged these assertions, arguing that an additional Security Council resolution, which the US and UK failed to obtain, would have been necessary to specifically authorize the invasion. They argue that the Security Council may only authorize the use of force against an "aggressor" in the interests of preserving peace, whereas the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not provoked by any aggressive military action.

In addition, an independent commission of inquiry set up by the Dutch government found that UN resolution 1441:

> cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorizing individual member states to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council's resolutions.

Furthermore, the legal right to determine how to enforce its own resolutions lies with the Security Council alone, and not with individual nations.

Frequently asked questions