The conduct of hostilities during Operation Iraqi Freedom: an international humanitarian law assessment

2003 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 73-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael N. Schmitt
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Operation Iraqi Freedom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
The One ◽  
Iraqi Freedom ◽  
Self Defence

The war in Iraq thrust international law into the global spotlight as has no conflict since Vietnam.Jus ad bellumdebates grew increasingly heated as the launch of hostilities in March 2003 approached. Did Security Council resolution 1441 authorise Operation Iraqi Freedom (hereafter, OIF)? Perhaps the attack was an exercise of self-defence against state-support to terrorism. Did the purported doctrine of ‘preemptive self-defence’, enunciated in the 2002 US National Security Strategy, offer a legal justification? What of humanitarian intervention, democratisation or regime change? Or was the sole normative basis the one formally asserted by the United States and United Kingdom — breach of a ceasefire set forth in a Security Council resolution adopted a dozen years earlier? Thejus ad bellumbrouhaha resurfaced in April 2005 with the revelation that British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith had issued a classified memorandum on the legality of hostilities that differed from the public justification he proffered, with OIF days away, just over a week later.

16. Neoconservatism and the domestic sources of American foreign policy

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuen Foong Khong
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Operation Iraqi Freedom ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Partial Explanation ◽  
Probability Estimates ◽  
The One ◽  
Iraqi Freedom

This chapter examines the role played by neoconservative ideas about foreign policy in persuading the George W. Bush administration to launch a preventive war against Iraq in March 2003. It considers the four key tenets of neoconservative foreign policy thought and how some of its leading proponents won key positions in the Bush administration. It argues that, by itself, neoconservatism provides only a partial explanation of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A more satisfactory explanation, it contends, would need to take into account the following: the 9/11 attacks, the strategic placement of neoconservative ideas by its advocates in calmer times, the assumption that the United States would have no trouble waging a successful war, and the ‘one per cent’ doctrine. It is the combination of these events, ideas, and probability estimates that tipped the balance in favour of war.

24. The War in Iraq

2020 ◽  
pp. 587-611
Author(s):  
John W. Young ◽  
John Kent
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Security ◽  
Operation Iraqi Freedom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
The Troubles ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Arab Spring ◽  
Iraqi Freedom

This chapter focuses on the Iraq war of 2003–11 and the troubles in the Middle East. George W. Bush’s advisers, led by Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, had been considering an attack on Iraq well before 9/11. At the same time, many experts within the government pointed to the lack of any evidence for Iraqi-sponsored terrorism directed against the United States. The threats to US national security were outlined to Bush in a briefing just prior to his inauguration; these threats came primarily from al-Qaeda’s terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The chapter first considers the US decision to invade Iraq, before discussing the war, taking into account the US’s Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war’s costs to the US and to Iraq. It also examines the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and concludes with an assessment of the ‘Arab Spring’.

scholarly journals Humanitarian Assistance and the Security Council

2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Zimmermann
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Humanitarian Assistance ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Territorial State ◽  
Draft Resolution ◽  
The Right

Over the years, the Security Council has on several occasions dealt with humanitarian assistance issues. However, it is Security Council Resolution 2165(2014), related to the situation in Syria, that has brought the role of the Security Council to the forefront of the debate. It is against this background that the article discusses the legal issues arising from Security Council action facilitating humanitarian assistance to be delivered in situations of non-international armed conflict.Following a brief survey of relevant practice of the Security Council related to humanitarian assistance, the article considers the relevance, if any, of Article 2(7) of the Charter of the United Nations (UN) to humanitarian assistance to be delivered in such situations. It then moves on to analyse whether a rejection by the territorial state of humanitarian aid to be delivered by third parties may amount to a situation under Article 39 of the UN Charter. It then considers in detail whether (at least implicitly) Resolution 2165 has been adopted under Chapter VII and, if this is not the case, whether it can be still considered to be legally binding.The article finally considers what impact the adoption of Security Council Resolution 2165 might have on the interpretation of otherwise applicable rules of international humanitarian law and, in particular, the right of third parties to provide humanitarian assistance in a situation of a non-international armed conflict in spite of the absence of consent by the territorial state, and the obligations that members of the Security Council, permanent and non-permanent, have under Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions when faced with a draft resolution providing for the delivery of humanitarian assistance, notwithstanding the absence of consent by the territorial state.

Forty Years after 242: A ““Canonical”” Text in Disrepute??

2007 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-48
Author(s):  
Richard Falk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Power Factor ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
New Approaches ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Canonical Text ◽  
Canonical Status

This essay examines the consequences of the near-canonical status acquired over the years by UN Security Council Resolution 242. After tracing the evolution of the vision of peace seen to flow from 242, the essay explores the various ways in which the resolution has been read. In particular, the interpretation of Israel (backed by the United States) is examined, along with the balance of power factor. The essay concludes by suggesting that clinging to 242 as ““canonical”” inhibits clear-sighted thinking on new approaches that take cognizance of the greatly altered circumstances.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document