Was The Iraq War Legal, Or Illegal, Under International Law?
During a BBC radio interview on Wednesday, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan created a controversy by reiterating his long-held position that the Iraq War was illegal because it breached the United Nations Charter. [1] On Thursday, the imperial leaders of the "Coalition of the Willing" retaliated by vehemently arguing that their Iraq War was, to the contrary, legal. [2]
Obviously, this dispute raises a legal question: "Whose opinion is correct, and whose is incorrect?" Additionally, we should be asking ourselves: "Who decides? (i.e., 'Whose jurisprudential opinion shall be dispositive for purposes of resolving this dispute?')"
It seems eminently reasonable -- even for the disputants -- to conclude that the optimal source of guidance on this question of international law would have to be the world's foremost experts in the field of international law. Hence, the UN's chief and the coalition's leaders need to know how the world's top international law experts would resolve their jurisprudential dispute. And we, the people, need to know who's right and who's wrong here.
Realistically, one cannot seriously expect the disputants -- much less their national electorates -- to wade through numerous legal documents, most of which contain rigorous and not-occasionally tedious reasoning, to find the correct answer. Thus, it seems prudent to proceed directly to the world's most authoritative answer to our pressing question du jour: "Was the Iraq War legal, or illegal, under international law?"
And The World's Most Authoritative Answer Is ... Among the world's foremost experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression. [3]
Moreover, these experts in the international law of war deem both preventive wars and preemptive strikes to be euphemistic subcategories of outlawed wars of aggression.
And the experts' answer would hold true regardless of whether their governing legal authority was: (A) the UN Security Council Resolutions that were passed to implement the conflict-resolution provisions of the UN Charter; or (B) prior treaties and juridical holdings which have long since become general international law. [4]
Readers who need to "trust but verify" (i.e., to corroborate) for themselves that the experts' overwhelming opinion is exactly as stated above should read a document entitled "15 January 2003." (Find it by scrolling down approximately one-fourth of the way, after you've clicked onto this ES website: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm "The Legality Of The Iraq War" .) Why?
That document was drafted and signed by the world's foremost international law experts -- the prestigious International Commission of International Law Jurists -- to provide ultimate proof of their authoritative opinion concerning the legal status of war against Iraq. Furthermore, this large body of eminent international law experts explicitly stated that they'd drafted their legal document in order to advise Messrs. Bush and Blair prior to the invasion: (1) that it would be blatantly illegal under international law for the Anglo-American belligerents to invade Iraq; and (2) that their joint decision as Commanders-in-Chief to commence hostilities would constitute prosecutable war crimes.
Skeptical readers who don't regard this highly-authoritative conclusion as an adequate answer are invited to undertake the legal reasoning for themselves at the ES website. Note that every applicable Article in the UN Charter, and every relevant UN Security Council Resolution, is cited and analyzed therein. And readers who continue to scroll down the ES website will find a succession of articles which summarize the opinions of noteworthy individual experts on international law. These, too, strongly confirm that the invasion of Iraq constituted an illegal war of aggression under international law. [5]
Finally, ambitious readers will learn what non-credible source was most responsible for propagating the fictitious pre-war claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon (hint: yet another uncredentialed neocon think-tanker from the thoroughly-discredited American Enterprise Institute).
Three Conclusions It is the overwhelming consensus of the world's foremost international law experts that: (1) UN Secretary General Annan's opinion is correct (i.e., true) because the Iraq War was, indeed, illegal; and
(2) the opinion of the "Coalition of the Willing's" leaders is incorrect (i.e., false) because their Iraq War was NOT legal.
(3) Therefore, Americans must break free of the neocons' self-delusional groupthink mentality by learning to differentiate between fact and truth, which are all-too-easily confused. For instance, it's an undeniable fact that Messrs. Bush and Cheney have been arguing along the campaign trail that "The Iraq War was legal!" Nevertheless, the mere fact that they've been vehemently arguing that point certainly does NOT make it true! Their argument is flawed by a logical fallacy called an ipse dixit (i.e., "something asserted but not proved"). As we've already seen, their argument is just plain WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW! Therefore, Messrs. Bush and Cheney are making a false argument (i.e., deceptively asserting something that is untrue).
The Bottom Line Americans should reject the temptation to vote for Messrs. Bush and Cheney, because: (1) both men were advised beforehand that their decision to commence the invasion of Iraq would be blatantly illegal under international law; (2) they invaded nonetheless, and now they're cynically attempting to mislead the public again by falsely arguing that "The Iraq War was legal!"; (3) however, their argument is legally-meritless nonsense -- the current equivalent of their earlier false argument that torture is a legal method for the US military's interrogation of prisoners; (4) they've repeatedly demonstrated their disdain for universal human rights and democratic governance under the rule of law; and
(5) the 21st-century world isn't Tombstone's OK Corral and they certainly aren't Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday -- however much they might wish us to believe that they are! [6]
ENDNOTES
[1] Read this 9-16-04 PI article by clicking on these blue words: http://www.politinfo.com/articles/article_2004_09_16_4815.html "UN Says Nothing New In Annan's 'Illegal War' Comment". Also see this 9-17-04 GU article, which contends that UN Secretary General Annan's statement wasn't his long-held opinion, but is new and belated: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1306642,00.html "The War Was Illegal"
[2] Read this 9-17-04 JO article by clicking on these blue words: http://snipurl.com/94y0 "Bush Joins Coalition Leaders In Defending War Against Iraq"
[3] Read the 9-15-04 ES's indispensable analysis by clicking on these blue words: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm#TOP Legality of the Iraq War. If the click-on doesn't link, paste this URL into your webserver: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm [Skeptical readers should not read to confirm their biases, but instead should set their biases aside until they've finished reading all of the legal arguments on this website, which will take awhile.]
[4] There seems to be one relevant omission from the ES website. General international law could have been be cited as an alternative basis for proving the Iraq War's illegality by analyzing these authoritative precedents: (A) the Kellogg-Briand Pact of Paris (1928); and (B) the Charters, Principles, Indictments, and Holdings from the International Military Tribunals at Nüremberg and Tokyo (1945-48).
[5] Generally speaking, legal opinions offered by government attorneys are NOT considered to be authoritative because: (a) they're drafted in the adversarial mode of an advocate, often under self-interested political pressure from the executive branch; (b) even at its best, their reasoning tends toward casuistry, reflecting Cicero's injudicious maxim,"salus populi suprema lex esto" (De Legibus, III, 3.8: "Let the welfare of the people be the supreme law!" Or the Bushites' tortuous translation thereof: "We feel that we can legally torture our prisoners now if it might save our people later!"); and (c) for an apt example, see the history of the Third Reich's attorneys Hans Frank and Wilhelm Frick, whose pre-war legal advice to Reichsführer Hitler was that Germany could use the pretext of an imminent threat to "preemptively" invade Poland, for which war crime they were both tried, sentenced, and hanged to death by the International Military Tribunal at Nüremberg. Note bene, Attorney General Ashcroft and Bush administration "torture memo" attorneys Bybee, Chertoff, Gonzales, Haynes and Woo!
[6] Read Douglas Jehl's 9-16-4 CD/SPI article by clicking on these blue words: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0916-02.htm "CIA Analysis Holds Bleak Vision For Iraq's Future". Also see the 9-16-04 Dreyfuss Report column: http://tompaine.com/archives/the_dreyfuss_report.php "Annan For President"
Author: Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., is the Executive Director of the American Center for International Law ("ACIL").
©2004EAPIII
Obviously, this dispute raises a legal question: "Whose opinion is correct, and whose is incorrect?" Additionally, we should be asking ourselves: "Who decides? (i.e., 'Whose jurisprudential opinion shall be dispositive for purposes of resolving this dispute?')"
It seems eminently reasonable -- even for the disputants -- to conclude that the optimal source of guidance on this question of international law would have to be the world's foremost experts in the field of international law. Hence, the UN's chief and the coalition's leaders need to know how the world's top international law experts would resolve their jurisprudential dispute. And we, the people, need to know who's right and who's wrong here.
Realistically, one cannot seriously expect the disputants -- much less their national electorates -- to wade through numerous legal documents, most of which contain rigorous and not-occasionally tedious reasoning, to find the correct answer. Thus, it seems prudent to proceed directly to the world's most authoritative answer to our pressing question du jour: "Was the Iraq War legal, or illegal, under international law?"
And The World's Most Authoritative Answer Is ... Among the world's foremost experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression. [3]
Moreover, these experts in the international law of war deem both preventive wars and preemptive strikes to be euphemistic subcategories of outlawed wars of aggression.
And the experts' answer would hold true regardless of whether their governing legal authority was: (A) the UN Security Council Resolutions that were passed to implement the conflict-resolution provisions of the UN Charter; or (B) prior treaties and juridical holdings which have long since become general international law. [4]
Readers who need to "trust but verify" (i.e., to corroborate) for themselves that the experts' overwhelming opinion is exactly as stated above should read a document entitled "15 January 2003." (Find it by scrolling down approximately one-fourth of the way, after you've clicked onto this ES website: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm "The Legality Of The Iraq War" .) Why?
That document was drafted and signed by the world's foremost international law experts -- the prestigious International Commission of International Law Jurists -- to provide ultimate proof of their authoritative opinion concerning the legal status of war against Iraq. Furthermore, this large body of eminent international law experts explicitly stated that they'd drafted their legal document in order to advise Messrs. Bush and Blair prior to the invasion: (1) that it would be blatantly illegal under international law for the Anglo-American belligerents to invade Iraq; and (2) that their joint decision as Commanders-in-Chief to commence hostilities would constitute prosecutable war crimes.
Skeptical readers who don't regard this highly-authoritative conclusion as an adequate answer are invited to undertake the legal reasoning for themselves at the ES website. Note that every applicable Article in the UN Charter, and every relevant UN Security Council Resolution, is cited and analyzed therein. And readers who continue to scroll down the ES website will find a succession of articles which summarize the opinions of noteworthy individual experts on international law. These, too, strongly confirm that the invasion of Iraq constituted an illegal war of aggression under international law. [5]
Finally, ambitious readers will learn what non-credible source was most responsible for propagating the fictitious pre-war claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon (hint: yet another uncredentialed neocon think-tanker from the thoroughly-discredited American Enterprise Institute).
Three Conclusions It is the overwhelming consensus of the world's foremost international law experts that: (1) UN Secretary General Annan's opinion is correct (i.e., true) because the Iraq War was, indeed, illegal; and
(2) the opinion of the "Coalition of the Willing's" leaders is incorrect (i.e., false) because their Iraq War was NOT legal.
(3) Therefore, Americans must break free of the neocons' self-delusional groupthink mentality by learning to differentiate between fact and truth, which are all-too-easily confused. For instance, it's an undeniable fact that Messrs. Bush and Cheney have been arguing along the campaign trail that "The Iraq War was legal!" Nevertheless, the mere fact that they've been vehemently arguing that point certainly does NOT make it true! Their argument is flawed by a logical fallacy called an ipse dixit (i.e., "something asserted but not proved"). As we've already seen, their argument is just plain WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW! Therefore, Messrs. Bush and Cheney are making a false argument (i.e., deceptively asserting something that is untrue).
The Bottom Line Americans should reject the temptation to vote for Messrs. Bush and Cheney, because: (1) both men were advised beforehand that their decision to commence the invasion of Iraq would be blatantly illegal under international law; (2) they invaded nonetheless, and now they're cynically attempting to mislead the public again by falsely arguing that "The Iraq War was legal!"; (3) however, their argument is legally-meritless nonsense -- the current equivalent of their earlier false argument that torture is a legal method for the US military's interrogation of prisoners; (4) they've repeatedly demonstrated their disdain for universal human rights and democratic governance under the rule of law; and
(5) the 21st-century world isn't Tombstone's OK Corral and they certainly aren't Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday -- however much they might wish us to believe that they are! [6]
ENDNOTES
[1] Read this 9-16-04 PI article by clicking on these blue words: http://www.politinfo.com/articles/article_2004_09_16_4815.html "UN Says Nothing New In Annan's 'Illegal War' Comment". Also see this 9-17-04 GU article, which contends that UN Secretary General Annan's statement wasn't his long-held opinion, but is new and belated: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1306642,00.html "The War Was Illegal"
[2] Read this 9-17-04 JO article by clicking on these blue words: http://snipurl.com/94y0 "Bush Joins Coalition Leaders In Defending War Against Iraq"
[3] Read the 9-15-04 ES's indispensable analysis by clicking on these blue words: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm#TOP Legality of the Iraq War. If the click-on doesn't link, paste this URL into your webserver: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm [Skeptical readers should not read to confirm their biases, but instead should set their biases aside until they've finished reading all of the legal arguments on this website, which will take awhile.]
[4] There seems to be one relevant omission from the ES website. General international law could have been be cited as an alternative basis for proving the Iraq War's illegality by analyzing these authoritative precedents: (A) the Kellogg-Briand Pact of Paris (1928); and (B) the Charters, Principles, Indictments, and Holdings from the International Military Tribunals at Nüremberg and Tokyo (1945-48).
[5] Generally speaking, legal opinions offered by government attorneys are NOT considered to be authoritative because: (a) they're drafted in the adversarial mode of an advocate, often under self-interested political pressure from the executive branch; (b) even at its best, their reasoning tends toward casuistry, reflecting Cicero's injudicious maxim,"salus populi suprema lex esto" (De Legibus, III, 3.8: "Let the welfare of the people be the supreme law!" Or the Bushites' tortuous translation thereof: "We feel that we can legally torture our prisoners now if it might save our people later!"); and (c) for an apt example, see the history of the Third Reich's attorneys Hans Frank and Wilhelm Frick, whose pre-war legal advice to Reichsführer Hitler was that Germany could use the pretext of an imminent threat to "preemptively" invade Poland, for which war crime they were both tried, sentenced, and hanged to death by the International Military Tribunal at Nüremberg. Note bene, Attorney General Ashcroft and Bush administration "torture memo" attorneys Bybee, Chertoff, Gonzales, Haynes and Woo!
[6] Read Douglas Jehl's 9-16-4 CD/SPI article by clicking on these blue words: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0916-02.htm "CIA Analysis Holds Bleak Vision For Iraq's Future". Also see the 9-16-04 Dreyfuss Report column: http://tompaine.com/archives/the_dreyfuss_report.php "Annan For President"
Author: Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., is the Executive Director of the American Center for International Law ("ACIL").
©2004EAPIII
posted by R7 | 9/18/2004 03:50:00 AM
4 Comments:
Kofi Annan declares U.S. led war in Iraq illegal
By ROBERT BARR
Associated Press Writer
LONDON (AP) -- Major U.S. allies on Thursday rejected a claim by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan that the war in Iraq was "illegal" because Washington and its coalition partners never got Security Council backing for the invasion.
Annan's comments undercut governments from Australia to Italy that supported the United States on Iraq, often in the face of widespread domestic opposition.
The U.N. chief told British Broadcasting Corp. radio on Wednesday that the U.S.-led invasion did not conform to the United Nations Charter, which lets nations take military action with explicit Security Council approval.
"From our point of view and from the Charter point of view, it was illegal," Annan said. He also raised concerns that persistent violence in Iraq puts in doubt the national elections scheduled for January.
Prime Minister Tony Blair's office disputed Annan's comments about the legitimacy of the war. It reiterated that the British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, had found Britain was acting legally in supporting the military action, citing three U.N. resolutions that justified the use of force against Saddam Hussein's regime.
Britain was a leading supporter of the U.S.-led March 2003 invasion that ousted Saddam, a war that followed months of bitter debate in the 15-nation Security Council.
Bush didn't comment directly on Annan's remarks but said he had no regrets.
"I was hoping diplomacy would work, " Bush said Thursday while campaigning in Minnesota. "Knowing what I know today even though we haven't found the stockpiles of weapons we thought were there, I'd still make the same decision. America and the world are safer with Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell."
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government, which also supported the invasion, made no comment.
But Giuseppe Fioroni, a member of Italy's center-left opposition, urged the government to take a position.
"Other governments felt a duty to express themselves with clear words. As usual, Italy is an exception from which we would like to hear a position clearly and urgently," Fioroni told the country's ANSA news agency.
Analyst Germano Dottori of the Center for Strategic Studies in Rome said he suspected Annan was trying to undermine President Bush before the U.S. elections.
"The timing cannot be explained otherwise. Why would you make a statement like this now, when it is in everybody's interest to stabilize the situation?" Dottori said.
France and Germany, which led the opposition to the war, declined to reopen the debate that split the Atlantic alliance.
"You know our position," French Foreign Ministry spokesman Herve Ladsous said when asked to comment on Annan's comments. "We had the opportunity at the time to express ourselves very clearly."
French lawmaker Axel Poniatowski, a member of President Jacques Chirac's party, said France's reluctance to publicly react to Annan's position showed that the debate on the legality of the war is over.
"This problem has passed into history," Poniatowski told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "The issue today is how do we get out of the Iraqi situation and what do we do against terrorism."
But Spain — whose current government opposed the war and withdrew its troops from Iraq after being elected in March — said Annan's comments came as no surprise.
"We're not surprised by Annan's comments. That's what Spain said and that's why we pulled out the troops," government spokesman Javier Valenzuela said.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard — a staunch U.S. supporter who defied widespread public anger to participate in the invasion — said the military action was "entirely legal."
A previous Security Council resolution had warned Iraq to be prepared for "serious consequences" if it didn't meet U.N. obligations, but the United States dropped an attempt to get a new resolution explicitly approving the March 2003 invasion when it became clear the measure would not pass.
"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time — without U.N. approval and much broader support from the international community," Annan told the BBC.
British Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt said she also disagreed with Annan.
"There have always been different views on that matter and ... of course I respect his views on this matter and I regret that we disagree with them," Hewitt told BBC radio, adding the important thing now was to help Iraqis achieve "a safe, secure, democratic Iraq."
Japan's top government spokesman, Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda, said his country, also a U.S. supporter in Iraq, would seek clarification about Annan's remarks.
Annan said the wave of violence engulfing Iraq puts in doubt the national elections scheduled for January.
There could not be "credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now," he told the BBC.
Interim Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawer said elections will not be held just "for the sake of elections" and emphasized that returning peace to his country is his government's priority.
"We want to hold the elections in a safe and secure environment. We will keep working around the clock to meet this commitment," he said during a visit to the Netherlands. "The U.N. is supervising and monitoring and helping us a lot in Iraq preparing for elections next year. I think it is a little bit too premature to decide on this issue."
Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has said he is determined to hold the election by Jan. 31, and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth has all but ruled out any delay beyond the Jan. 31 deadline.
Copyright © 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © The Billings Gazette, a division of Lee Enterprises.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
France Backs UN Chief's Description of US War on Iraq as "Illegal"
Fri Sep 17,11:47 AM ET Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!
PARIS (AFP) - France backed UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites)'s description of the US-led war on Iraq (news - web sites) as "illegal", with Foreign Minister Michel Barnier saying that long-held stance was why his country had opposed joining the conflict.
"You well know that what explains our country's disagreement with the way the war was carried out was that it clearly did not at that time abide by international law and there was not a clear request from the United States to start that action," he said Friday at a joint news conference with visiting New Zealand Foreign Minister Phil Goff.
That was "traditionally" France's view from the start, he added.
"We have always considered that it's international law that constitutes the framework for any action, notably against terrorism or for stability in the world," he said.
Barnier's comments added fuel to a debate over the legitimacy of the US-British invasion of Iraq that promises to loom large at the United Nations (news - web sites) headquarters in New York next week when world leaders and ministers gather for the world body's 59th general session.
Annan threw the spotlight back on the issue and tore the skin off old transatlantic wounds when he told BBC radio Wednesday that the United States had failed to seek a needed second resolution before launching the war in March 2003.
"I've indicated that it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, and from the charter point of view it was illegal," Annan said.
The US government hit back by claiming it considered that a previous UN resolution passed four months before the conflict gave it sufficient authority to wage its action because Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had refused to surrender suspected stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
After a year and a half of US troop deployment in Iraq, no such weapons have been found.
The US ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth, said Thursday that the UN chief should have kept silent on the topic.
The debate has re-ignited simmering animosity between the pro- and anti-war camps.
France -- a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council along with the United States -- was widely perceived as the leader of the latter camp because of highly publicised arguments made at the time by Barnier's predecessor, Dominique de Villepin, questioning the US justification for a pre-emptive invasion.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a staunch supporter of the war, was particularly scathing of Annan's comment, saying he saw the United Nations as a "paralysed" body.
Goff, speaking at Barnier's side, emphasised that, unlike Australia, his country "was not a member of the coalition of the willing" and that it "has always regarded that as being critical in finding multilateral solutions to the world's problems".
"Any shortcomings of the United Nations can't simply be blamed on the institution itself but rather on the readiness of international community members to work through that institution," he said, adding that "it would have been helpful to have had a second resolution to clarify" the legality of the Iraq war.
Goff said that 61 military engineers New Zealand who had contributed to the reconstruction effort in Iraq at the United Nations' request would be returning home this month after a year's tour of duty near the southern city of Basra.
"It is possible that defence forces in terms of reconstruction and humanitarian work may be redeployed in Iraq sometime in the future," he said. "But at the current time our major commitment is in the area of Afghanistan (news - web sites)."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home