Under international ius ad bellum norms the use of force is always illegal, except when qualified as one of two exceptions: when authorized by a legitimate right of self-defence and when authorized by a relevant UN Security Council Resolution. The Iraq invasion of 2003 has been rationalized as lawful and authorized by a material breach of UNSC Resolution 1441. It is submitted that a breach of that Resolution is insufficient legal grounds for invasion. The Resolution is not explicit enough to warrant such construction and cannot claim to lift or abolish an existing state of cease-fire. It was for the UN not for individual states to decide whether Iraq had failed to fulfill its obligations to such an extent as to warrant punitive military action. The UN refused to take such action. The other argument presented in favour of the invasion’s legality was preventive self-defence. Not only was that argument irrelevant, it was also an exercise in convolution – it asserted that legally under certain circumstances pre-emptive self-defence is the same as preventive self-defence. It clearly is not. The self-defence argument rested on two conclusions, subsequently proved false – the alleged weapons of mass destruction arsenal in the possession of Iraq and the alleged links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The invasion wasn’t lawful under either of those two arguments. International law does need to adapt to new threats such as terrorist activity and cruel regimes, but not at the cost of making the whole system of ius ad bellum obsolete and dysfunctional.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||