- This topic has 17 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Based on this definition of international law ? the system of rules that governs relations between nation states. (this also includes Geneva and Hague rules) was the U.S. invasion of Iraq legal?Posted this on NJO and it was also discussed (with an extreme Leftist) on CL. Trying to do some research on the legality/illegality of the invasion. There is about an equal sentiment from both sides. However I'm noticing that even those who lean "illegal" state that is questionable because UN Security Council resolutions are not mandates. (whatever that means)Donald Baker said this:
To be blunt, the first Persian Gulf War never officially ended...it was a cease fire. We could start that conflict up again without the need for a UN Resolution as the old one was technically still in effect.
That may be correct, but there could be an issue that this means it is based on Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait. Saddam did that. If he invaded Kuwait again, that leaves no question. But that's not the case here. However, he did violate many other resolutions. And the wording in those resolutions was vague. Does "severe consequences" mean military action? Bush and others thought so and that's how he made his case for invasion. (I think 1441 is the only resolution that uses this wording)Also, does it really matter what the UN has to say? In this case, I say yes for a few reasons. We are powerful, therefore have much responsibility. We are trying to win hearts and mind, it is important we set an example and obey international law.Do Geneva and conventions apply to this conflict? Why or why not? I think they apply to all armed conflicts.I'm pondering writing a paper on this. I don't know enough to do a persuavive essay assignment, but maybe for the research essay. Either way, this is way over my head and perhaps I should choose another subject. But on the other hand, I kind of like the challenge.Thoughts? Comments? Factual opinions? What about the invasion of Afghanistan?
It's been a while since I studied my international law, but I can tell you that yes, international law does matter in conflicts such as these. It is my understanding that Iraq had violated many UN resolutions without punishment, so the US decided to enforce the resolutions with or without the UN. One of the key issues of the origin of the war was this - what good is international law and UN laws/regulations if they are not enforced? What good is any law if there is no weight behind it? This is the problem that the UN faced which the US tried to answer. I recall hearing that France had economic relations with Iraq, so at least the appearance of favoratism was present when it did not back the US. Was the US right to do what it did? On one hand there is the need to enforce rules; without enforcement these rules mean little and will not prohibit particular behavior. On the other hand, war is the greatest of conflicts between nations and should really be a last resort - not merely a way to enforce policy. If you are doing a paper dealing with international law you may want to study up on the concept of jus cogens. You'll want to look for precedent - or past similar situations and how they have been decided by the international community - over the history of the last 100 or more years. International law is an interesting thing as there seem to be shifting principles which guide the most serious of issues. In a sense, it's almost like gentlement resorting to "mob justice".
Thanks, Phid. I wasn't planning on doing a paper about international law, just specifically this topic. (which of course I'll have to research international law)
You'll want to look for precedent - or past similar situations
According to many, what we did was never done before - using military force pre-emptively - The Bush Doctrine. That's what seemed to cause all the "problems" with everyone.I'll check out that jus cogens more.
Then it's a break from precendence….but in such a case you'd need to compare the most recent action to similar situations where a different course of action was taken. You'll need to reveal the true distinguishing factors which made the Iraq situation so different from other (relatively) similar situations that the U.S. felt invasion was justified. If you do it right, you'll basically be constructing a test comprised of elements which justify invasion of a foreign state.
…but then again, maybe not.Interesting findThe Implications of Preemptive and Preventive War Doctrines: A Reconsiderationhttp://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB789.pdfAbstract:
Preemption and prevention are different concepts. To preempt is to attempt to strike first against an enemy who is in the process of preparing, or is actually launching, an attack against you. Preemption is not controversial. The decision for war has been taken out of your hands. Prevention, however, is a decision to wage war, or conduct a strike, so as to prevent a far more dangerous context maturing in the future. To decide on preventive war is to elect to prevent a particular, very threatening strategic future from coming to pass. Despite much legal argument, there is no legal difficulty with either concept. The UN Charter, with its recognition of the inherent right of sovereign states to self-defense, as generally interpreted around the world does not require a victim or target state to suffer the first blow. To strike preventively in self-defense is legal, though it will usually be controversial. Preventive war is simply war, distinguishable only by its timing, and possibly its motivation.
I skimmed through parts of that paper and it looked like it would be an interesting read if I were to sit through all 70 pages. But here's something that caught my eye on page 20:
Just war doctrine requires: (1) a just cause; (2) legitimate authority; (3) right intention; (4) proportionality; (5) likelihood of success; and (6) resort to war only as a last resort. These potent criteria are as unambiguous in their essential meaning as they are useless as a practical guide. When is the last resort? As much to the point, who has the right to decide? According to the UN Charter, every sovereign state has an inherent right of self-defense, and hence has a duty to judge on its own behalf when is its last resort.
From what I understand there does appear to be some "wiggle room" due to the lack of specificity of when these elements are satisfied. Number 6, of course, is the important one for our purposes. What kind of certainty does this require that a nation is acting as a "last" resort? The questions that the Iraq War face when the history books are written may include whether the U.S. could have done more through other channels (diplomatic and/or otherwise) to achieve its ends, whether the U.S. or any other nation was really "imminently threatened" by Iraq at the time of the invasion, and whether it had the rightful authority to remove a foreign leader, regardless of his treatment of his people.
I've only read certain parts myself so far. But what you said about #6 appears to be the point the author is mostly addressing.
Very often, arguments for more time for diplomacy,sanctions, political subversion, and so forth, are really efforts intended to stall a move to military action, rather than serious claims for prospective success. (page viii)
And then he presents each argument with his own arguments
Preemption and prevention are only feasible if intelligence is immaculate.Robert R. Tomes insists that ?[P]reemption, to be an effective component of nationalsecurity strategy, requires exquisite intelligence. It requires deep insights into adversary capabilities and interests, accurate indicators and warning, prescient decision making capabilities, and superior battlefield intelligence.?This is plausible, but overstated. It is agreeable to have exquisite intelligence, but Tomes is in danger of setting the standard so high that it cannot be met. This monograph suggests, contra Tomes, that for preemption and prevention one has to settle for intelligence that is good enough. Good enough, that is, to enable military force to do the job it is assigned.(page 36)
To wage preventive war, even to endorse it as policy, sets a highly undesirable precedent that encourages the resort to force in international relations.The justification is international security. As the principal guardian or sheriff of world order, albeit admittedly self-appointed, the United States must allow itself the policy and strategy to fulfil its unique responsibilities. (page 43)
"The justification is international security" IMO is a very powerful statement.
Again, interesting quotes you take from the paper. He sounds compelling. Still, what he might not be able to see is that on a large scale history will judge decisions to engage in war with a far broader brush than what the author seems to do. He sounds like the decision must be made in the here-and-now, and so it needs to be. But there are other, greater questions about the nature of humanity that ultimately come into the picture.Also, I'm not sure about his statement "As the principal guardian or sheriff of world order...". Perhaps he offers a foundation for this elsewhere in the paper, but I'd like to see it.
That's sort of what my whole argument is based on. As the #1 wordl power, the United states has an obligation to do what the UN has failed to do, be the enforcer of international law.(note to Phid: No I do not have 2 personalities. It's just my writing style varies depending on the audience. ;D)
You know what's cool? The professor suggested (not required) that whatever topic we choose, to take the opposing view. He said doing that will teach us how to be critical thinkers.
That's sort of what my whole argument is based on. As the #1 wordl power, the United states has an obligation to do what the UN has failed to do, be the enforcer of international law.(note to Phid: No I do not have 2 personalities. It's just my writing style varies depending on the audience. ;D)
What do you mean "2 personalities"? For a moment there I thought that you were saying that you were the author of that 70-page paper.
I wish. I meant 2 personalities in my writing style on these boards, for some reason disagreeing about something here (if we even do) is different since it's based more on critical thinkng and open-mindedness and not so much on emotionally driven hatred for a particular current President or war. (or Bible)
Well that is sort of the meaning of “academic freedom”, is it not? I think what you have probably been exposed to in terms of disagreements/debates in your more recent future have been with people at odds with the core of your ideology. These are differences which people likely find very hard to change since they're deeply-held beliefs and people want to defend their personal beliefs; after all, if you shake a person's core values then you shake their very sense of reality which impacts them even in the here-and-now. As you meet people who share your same core values you'll find that you still disagree with them, but many times it is not on core beliefs but rather on other matters, particularly those of prudence, execution of policy, or similar matters. I think this may especially hold true as you advance in academia. When approaching these arguments it's best to divorce "personal" attachments to one's beliefs and instead go with the flow of what reason, presented in the arguments, leads to. In other words, if you open yourself up to the possibility of being wrong, you'll find that your positions on the issues will ultimately be refined and sharpened, leading to positions which are stronger and on solid ground in the future. And I'm not talking necessarily about you in particular, but rather in general. For example, it's not a "core" belief that America should or should not be a "world policeman", but so far prudence leads me to think one option is better than the other. At least at this point.
Thank you for this advice. This is my problem all along. I never really separated ” core ideology” from the other things you are saying.Your last few sentences are thought-provoking. I can see many times when my core beliefs have been opposed and proven wrong and that has actually strengthened and challenged me to make me want to look into it further. Not all the time, but getting better. I know not everyone shares my strong foreign policy beliefs. But with many other issues there is just true and then there is just false. It's when I confront those types of arguments that I find my civillity is a little less..well..civil. But that's just an excuse.Then there are those times when people accuse each other of being what they're not (as is happening on the other place....heck, I probably criticize the Bush admin more than the Left does, but some call me a partisan neocon propagandist..if anything I'm trying to counter neocon propaganda). I think I've finally learned, as of yesterday, to not take it personal and that I don't have to "give it back" to them by calling them anti-American or whatnot. It is in my own and everybody else's who is reading it best interest to just back down.
