It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by crossfire
Any argument that the action was illegal was negated by the actions of the French.
They argued that only the UN had the authority to order action. But when the UN ordered sanctions on Iraq, it was the very same corrupt and cowardly French that broke the sanctions regime.
This neutralised the natural authority of the UN - how could it have any legal authority if a principal member of the misnamed "security council" was undermining it?
So those who opposed terror in the ME formed a coalition of countries willing to remove the danger.
Given that the primary global institution to adjudicate on the legality of the action had been undermined, there was no competant authority to declare the action illegal.
TextLegality of the US-UK Invasion of Iraq in International Law
Prior to the invasion of Iraq there was concern expressed both in the USA and the UK as to the legality of the war.
Although the UN Charter allows for self-defence in the case of an armed attack, the consensus of legal opinion was that international law did not make lawful a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.
A good analysis of the position was given by Professor Stephen Zunes in "Seven Fallacies of US Plans to Invade Iraq" a scholarly paper published in Foreign Policy in Focus which seems to us to be a good analysis of the international law position.
Originally posted by snoopy
And yes there is an international court of law. We also have conventions (geniva, etc). One of the purposes of the UN is to uphold such international laws (to an extent) no?
I am just going to show article 41 and 42 of the UN Charter which we drafted and signed in 1945 as did 50 other countries.
Originally posted by soulforge
, All Roman Wars,
TextIn fact, no major power has declared war on another state since World War II because of the terms of the Charter of the United Nations under which the use of force as a means for dispute resolution between nation states is declared unlawful save in certain narrowly defined circumstances. Instead, signatories to the Charter are obliged to bring their disputes before the Security Council of the United Nations which, in defined circumstances, may authorise the use of force.
Instead, to circumvent the ban on the use of force, there is much government use of euphemism to avoid calling a spade a spade.
The "Korean War" was a Chapter VII Action under United Nations auspices.
The "Vietnam War" was technically military assistance to the friendly foreign government of South Vietnam.
The US bombings of Laos and Cambodia, or its mining of the ports of Nicaragua were (as we shall see) purely and simply unlawful as a matter of international law (as was the British, French and Israeli invasion of Suez in 1956).
In relation to Suez (which is a good precedent for Iraq) it is worth recalling the position of the then US Administration which had the good fortune to be headed by the late President Dwight D. Eisenhower. When in 1956, France, Israel and the United Kingdom sent troops to the Suez Canal without the authority of the United Nations, President Eisenhower addressed the American people. He said this:-