Invasion of Iraq for International

¶ … Invasion of Iraq for International Law

Over the last 150 years, international law was often seen as a way for different nation states to be able to collectively deal with a host of challenges. This is when James Kent (a prominent political scientist) said, "A comprehensive and scientific knowledge of international law is highly necessary, not only for lawyers practicing in commercial ports. But, to every person who is animated by liberal views and a generous ambition to assume stations of high public trust." As a result, these kinds of theories were given more importance after the end of World War I and the realization that the current structure was ineffective. This would lead the creation of the League of Nations as a way to effectively deal with a host of disputes. (Slomanson 290)

However, it was ineffective in addressing the challenges facing the international community by allowing the conditions to exist for Germany to re militarize (resulting in World War II). Since this time, there have been various treaties enacted that are designed to create a new standard that will hold all nations accountable for their actions. To enforce these different regulations was the creation of organizations such as the United Nations. They have the responsibility for ensuring that anyone who is in violation of these standards is held accountable for their behavior. (Slomanson 1 -- 45)

In the late 1990's and early 2000's, is when Iraq was considered to be in violation of international law when it came to WMD programs. As they had claimed, that they did not have anything beyond the scope of international guidelines. This created suspicion in the international community, as no one knew for sure if Saddam Hussein (the President of Iraq) was telling the truth. The reason why, is because he had been continuing to allow UN inspectors to have limited access on suspected facilities. At the same time, he was continually taking a defiant tone when it came to these programs. This created suspicions that Iraq was secretly building a nuclear bomb and that they had re developed the programs for chemical / biological weapons. (Tirman 101-124) (O'Connell 1 -- 19)

In the United States, this raised concerns that Iraq could pass materials from these kinds of programs to terrorist organizations. To prevent this from happening, the U.S. And Great Britain went to the UN Security Council outlining the different reasons for an invasion. The most notable include that Iraq has continually violated the directives of 16 UN Security Council Resolutions. In 2002, the Security Council had unanimously passed one final resolution called 1441. This specifically asked Iraq to comply with their directives and those of previous resolutions. (Tirman 25 -- 39)

However, the problem is that the world community was largely divided about the legality surrounding the invasion itself. This is because, there are a host of questions as to if the U.S. had justification to engage in such actions. Evidence of this can be seen with the large number of multi-agreement treaties that the U.S. had signed as a part of their membership in the UN. Under these basic provisions, the U.S. had to yield to international organizations to deal with these issues. If they were unilaterally acting on their own, this could be a violation in the UN charter. As the basic idea is going against the principals of everyone working together to diplomatically resolve these issues. In the case of Iraq, the U.S. withdrew their support of the UN Resolution and led their own coalition of the willing conducting the invasion. This is indirect violation of Article 1 of the UN Charter (which prohibits nations from engaging in the use of physical force against another state). (Slomanson 1-44)

Yet, when you look at these ideas a little further, it is clear that Iraq was showing how it was hostile towards U.S. And UN-based forces. Evidence of this can be seen with Saddam Hussein sending 6 thousand troops into the Iraqi dessert in response to war games that were being conducted between the U.S. And Kuwait. After this incident, Iraq had also backed down when they were faced with the possibility of military invasion such as 1998. This is important, because it is showing how Iraq considered this to be a violation of their sovereignty. As they felt that the large military presence was a direct threat against the country itself. While the military exercises, was an indication that Iraq could face a second invasion if they do not change their behavior (from the view point of the United States). (Slomanson 285 -- 349)