The inspection teams were withdrawn before Operation Desert Fox and did not return for four years. The United Nations no-fly zone imposed by the US, Britain and France – also a controversial legality – has become a place of constant fire since Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan ordered the Iraqi military to attack all aircraft in the no-fly zone. [31] The British Foreign Secretary at the time, Jack Straw, sent a secret letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair in April 2002, warning Blair that the arguments for military action against Iraq were of “dubious legality.” The letter goes on to state that “regime change per se is not a justification for military action” and that “the weight of legal advice here is that a new [UN] mandate may well be needed.” Such a new UN mandate has never been given. The letter also expresses doubts about the outcome of the military action. [53] The legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated. The UN Security Council, as described in Article 39 of the UN Charter, theoretically has the ability to decide the legality of war, but the US and Britain have veto power in the Security Council, so action is highly unlikely even if the issue were raised. Nevertheless, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) may require the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – “the principal judicial organ of the United Nations” (Article 92) – to issue either an “advisory opinion” or a “judgment” on the legality of war. It was only on 12 December 2003 that the United Nations General Assembly, in its resolution A/RES/ES-10/14[63], requested the ICJ to provide an “advisory opinion” on “the legal consequences of the construction of the wall built by Israel”. despite the opposition of the permanent members of the Security Council. It achieved this by participating in the tenth “emergency special session” within the framework of the resolution “Together for Peace”. The ICJ had previously ruled against the US for its actions in Nicaragua, a statement the US did not want to comply with.
The American and British political leaders who advanced the arguments that led to the invasion claimed that the war was legal; [3] However, legal experts, including John Chilcot, who, as chairman of the British Public Inquiry on Iraq, also known as the Iraq Inquiry, conducted an inquiry with hearings from November 24, 2009 to February 2, 2011, concluded that the process of determining the legal basis for the invasion of Iraq was unsatisfactory and that the actions of the United States and the United Kingdom undermined the authority of the United Nations. Russian President Vladimir Putin[4][5] said the war was unjustified, and Tony Blair`s deputy prime minister, John Prescott,[6] also argued that the invasion of Iraq lacked legality as examples. In a 2005 article, Kramer & Michalowski argued that war “violates the Charter of the United Nations and international humanitarian law.” [7] Russian President Vladimir Putin declared on December 19, 2003, during a televised conference before a meeting with the US envoy to Iraq: “The use of force abroad can only be sanctioned by the United Nations under current international law. That is international law. Anything that happens without the approval of the UN Security Council cannot be recognized as just or justified. [8] [4] British officials did not dispute the authenticity of the document, but denied that it accurately reflected the situation. The Downing Street memo is relevant to the question of the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq because it discusses some legal theories examined before the invasion. The UN Security Council, as described in Article 39 of the UN Charter, has the ability to decide on the legality of war, but no UN member country has yet requested it. The United States and the United Kingdom have veto power in the Security Council, so Security Council action is highly unlikely, even if the issue were raised.
Nevertheless, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) may require the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – “the principal judicial organ of the United Nations” (Article 92) – to issue either an “advisory opinion” or a “judgment” on the legality of war. Minutes of cabinet meetings discussing the legality of the Iraq war were the subject of an access to information request in 2007. The request was rejected. On 19 February 2008, the Information Commissioner ordered disclosure of the protocol in the public interest [70], but the Government appealed to the Information Tribunal. When the Tribunal upheld the disclosure order in early 2009 [71], Jack Straw (then Minister of Justice) vetoed the first ministerial veto (section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000) and prevented the publication of the minutes. [72] [73] On July 6, 2016, excerpts from the transcript of the Iraq inquiry were released. [2] [3] The Bush administration can rightly be accused of not bothering to develop a strategy to improve the chances of such an outcome. U.S. behavior during this period was strategically reckless and legally fragile. And Mr. Kerry has a perfectly reasonable reason to criticize this period of diplomacy of the Bush administration. In 2010, during the Prime Minister`s questions in Parliament, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg claimed that the war in Iraq was illegal.
Statements issued later suggested that this was a personal point of view and not a formal point of view of the coalition government. [56] Then he added unequivocally: “I stressed that this is not in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. From our point of view and from a Charter perspective, it was illegal. During his tenure, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980 and launched the Iran-Iraq war, which lasted until 1988. [10] The Iraqi invasion was backed by the US, which provided more than $5 billion to support Saddam`s party and sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment to Iraq. During the war, Hussein used chemical weapons on at least 10 occasions, including attacks on civilians. [11] In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait and started the Gulf War. After Saddam`s 1991 ceasefire agreement with the United Nations, which suspended Gulf War hostilities, Iraq repeatedly violated 16 different UN Security Council resolutions from 1990 to 2002. [12] The Iraq Survey Group interviewed regime officials who said Hussein employed weapons scientists and planned to restart Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction program after inspections, including nuclear weapons, were lifted. [13] Under UN Resolution 1441, he had a “last chance” to comply with the resolution, and he again violated the resolution by submitting a false report to UNMOVIC inspectors and constantly preventing them from inspecting Iraqi weapons of mass destruction sites. [14] [15] I regret that I cannot agree that it is legal to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution. [T]he unlawful use of force on such a scale constitutes a crime of aggression; Nor can I accept such an approach in circumstances so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law.
[61] The United States. and the governments of the United Kingdom, as well as others, also declared (as stated in the first four paragraphs of the joint resolution)[19] that the invasion was entirely legal because it was already authorized by existing United Nations Security Council resolutions and a resumption of hostilities previously temporarily suspended, not a war of aggression, since the United States and Britain, as agents of defense of Kuwait as a response to the invasion of Iraq in 1990. [20] [21] Some international legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, the US-based National Lawyers` Guild,[22] a group of 31 Canadian law professors, and the US-based Lawyers` Committee on Nuclear Policy, have found this legal justification intenable and consider the invasion not supported by a UN resolution and therefore illegal. [23] [24] [25] The legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq is the subject of dispute. The debate revolves around whether the invasion was an unprovoked attack on an independent country that could have violated international law, or whether the UN Security Council authorized the invasion (whether the conditions set after the Gulf War allowed for resumption if Iraq did not comply with Security Council resolutions). [1] Those arguing for its legitimacy often cite Joint Congress Resolution 114 and UN Security Council resolutions such as Resolutions 1441 and 678. [2] [3] Those who oppose its legitimacy also cite some of the same sources, claiming that they do not really authorize war, but rather set conditions that must be met. before war can be declared.
Moreover, the Security Council can only authorize the use of force against an “aggressor”[4] in the interest of preserving peace, whereas the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not provoked by aggressive military action. In March 2004, when a trial in the Royal Court raised the question of whether the invasion was lawful, Under-Secretary of State Sir Michael Hastings wrote to the Court and warned: “It would be prejudicial to the national interest and the conduct of the government`s foreign policy if the English courts were to give opinions on questions of international law.” .
