The Politics of Justifying Force: The Suez Crisis, The Iraq War and International Law, Using and Justifying Force: The Suez Crisis, The Iraq War and International Law, written by Charlotte Peevers

Abstract This essay reads three texts: Charlotte Peevers’s The Politics of Justifying Force: the Suez Crisis, the Iraq War and International Law, the 2016 Report of the UK Iraq Inquiry, and Ayça Çubukçu’s For the Love of Humanity: The World Tribunal On Iraq. It explores what each of the texts tells us about the role of international law as a public language and suggests how we might think of the texts as creating one legacy of the Iraq War.

Download Full-text

The politics of justifying force: the Suez Crisis, the Iraq War, and international law

Journal on the Use of Force and International Law ◽

10.1080/20531702.2015.1043102 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 2 (1) ◽

pp. 169-183

Author(s):

Victor Kattan

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Iraq War ◽

Suez Crisis

Download Full-text

“Be Karbala Miravim!”

10.1093/oso/9780199379774.003.0010 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Anicée Van Engeland

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

International Law ◽

Hybrid System ◽

Legal System ◽

Iraq War ◽

International Humanitarian Law ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Legal Standards ◽

Domestic Law

This chapter considers the extent to which Islamic governance can integrate international humanitarian law (IHL) into its own legal system by examining the case of Iran. It addresses the consequences of the emergence of an Islamic-universal hybrid legal system. The stakes are high because IHL’s efficiency and necessity have been questioned: The existence of the Iranian hybrid system of law can be perceived as a threat by scholars arguing that international law is at risk of fragmentation due to the variety of domestic and regional approaches to fundamental legal standards. The importance of those stakes is illustrated by the Iran-Iraq War: The process of mixing a universal secular legal system with a religious domestic law occurred at a crucial time when Iran was at war with Iraq, with clear effects on the protection of civilians and the conduct of hostilities.

Download Full-text

LAWLESS WORLD: MAKING AND BREAKING GLOBAL RULES

The Denning Law Journal ◽

10.5750/dlj.v19i1.388 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

pp. 281-293

Author(s):

Jason De Mink

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Kyoto Protocol ◽

Foreign Investment ◽

Subject Matter ◽

Iraq War ◽

Abu Ghraib

Philippe Sands (Penguin Books, London 2006) Paperback, Pp 432, ISBN 9780141017990, £8.99This being the first book that I have ever read dedicated exclusively to international law, I was not certain what to expect. I did not feel disappointed or out of my depth with “Lawless World” however, as Professor Sands writes clearly and authoritatively on subject-matter which will be quite familiar to most readers: the Pinochet trial, the Kyoto Protocol, trade rules, foreign investment, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the Iraq War and torture.

Download Full-text

The Iraq Crisis and the Future of the Western Alliance

The Cold War and After ◽

10.23943/princeton/9780691152028.003.0009 ◽

2012 ◽

Author(s):

Marc Trachtenberg

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Security Council ◽

Iraq War ◽

Mass Destruction ◽

Unilateral Action ◽

The Future ◽

Run Up ◽

Control Regime

This chapter considers the various issues raised in the run-up to the Iraq War. It asks: How much of a problem would the development of a mass destruction capability by a regime like that of Iraq in 2002 have actually posed? Wouldn't the development of an Iraqi nuclear capability have led to mutual deterrence and thus to a relatively stable strategic relationship? To the extent that an Iraqi capability of this sort would have posed serious problems, couldn't the Iraqis have been prevented permanently from developing such forces through nonmilitary means? Couldn't an inspection regime have done the trick? And if the control regime wasn't up to the job, would it be legitimate for a country to act essentially on its own, without first getting explicit U.N. Security Council authorization? Was unilateral action impermissible under international law, and is a country that dealt with the problem in that way to be branded a law-breaker?

Download Full-text