Legality of U.S. Invasion of Iraq

Paper Summary:

This paper points out that there are three underlying concepts that must be assessed in determining whether, under international law, the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003 was legal or not. The first of these is the United Nations' principle that conflicts should not be resolved unilaterally, but rather with the consensus of that body. The second is the Geneva Conventions principle against targeting civilian populations and civilian infrastructure not justified by military objectives. The third is the necessity of an individual state to protect itself; that is, the United States.

From the Paper:

"Before one even begins to look at what experts in international law believe about the invasion, it is necessary to consider this: both the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions protocols have been used to justify various forms of international actions in the past, so it is not possible, without the incident actually landing in an international tribunal, to definitively say that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was legal or not. All that is possible at the moment is providing the full range of expert opinions regarding the subject. Still, the main focus in determining the legality or illegality of the act must remain the United Nations. Founded in order to prevent foster nations' settling disputes without the need for force, its Charter is the foundation on which relations between sovereign states is governed. In addition, justification for the action is a proper concept to consider: the principles set forth in the United Nations Charter are imprecise, leaving room for proving that a nation's actions were consistent with the letter and spirit of the articles in question."

More papers on Legality of U.S. Invasion of Iraq:

• Essay # 27786 : "The Invasion of Iraq"
• Essay # 51902 : "U.S.-Led Invasion of Iraq"
• Essay # 63337 : "The Invasion of Iraq"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: