© the eyeranian

That Richard Pele is suddenly the arbiter of "official" definitions now that he makes a statement that might be construed as supportive of the idea that the invasion was illegal is a wonderful rhetorical stretch.

That there can be legitimate debate about the U.N. charter's recognition of national sovereignty, as well as debate about the meaning of U.N. 1441, is fair enough.

To my reading (and please note that the entire text of Perle's comments are not provided) Perle is validating exactly why it is vital that "international law" not be the only guide under which nations conduct themselves.

Anyone who doubts that Perle is an "over the top" supporter of coalition actions should read http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19017,filter./news_detail.asp and then ask what was he really getting at with his comment.

I do think the post is instructive in the sense that Pedram asserting the war's illegality is doing so in the context of international law - and I can agree that "international law" (and who is it that writes this law?) may indeed declare the war illegal.

But it is not the only law which a sovereign nation must consider, now is it? Or else Iran, for example, would have to cave to the IAEC.

Nonetheless, a good post.

Posted by: stephen at November 20, 2003 07:54 AM

"International Law" would be the only valid measure of justice as it relates to relations between governments and countries. Not the South Carolina law or Virginia law or Ethiopian law and regardless of who breaks it, be it Iran, Russia or USA in this case, such actions should be condemned.

I don't think there is any doubt in the minds of any unbiased politically aware persons globally to disagree the invasion of Iraq was just illegal (as even Perle admits now) and anyone trying to argue against it, is once again back into the realm of nonesense politics.

Posted by: Naser at November 20, 2003 05:36 PM

If I we, for the pont of discussion, suggest that international law overrules soveriegn law, then how isn't Iran in violation of that law with regards to nukes?

And, if international law forbids a particular thing, be it violations of human rights or armed invasions, how is it that you who so strongly favor it, believe it should be enforced?

Posted by: stephen at November 20, 2003 06:52 PM

...and I am not so sure that an out of context single line of quote by Perle, who is too gung ho even by my standards, constitutes an admission of any sort on his part, and to read it thus one is likely to be mistaken. Can anyone find the whole speech? I really would be interested to read it.

Lastly, can anyone tell me exactly what law it is that they believe has been broken? When I assert the war was not illegal, i do us in reference to U.S. law, the U.N. charter and commonly accepted standards of sovereign law. If ya'll can show me the law you mean, then maybe we can agree.

Posted by: stephen at November 20, 2003 06:57 PM

Being a lawyer I don't understand how anyones claims make a thing legal or not. Basically international law is as ambigious a thing there is. By literal interpretation of the UN charter and the relevant resolution the war was IMHO completely legal (cannot say that about Kosovo nor Desert Fox though). The actual term the UN has used to indicate the right to start war in the name of UN has contrary to popular myth varied, and in a situation where a state of war has formally existed for twelve years (the thing in 1991 ended with a truce not a peace treaty) the serious consequences could only have one possible meaning (which btw was known to everybody). However by taking into account the fact that then resolution 1441 was passed, the consensus among the security council seemed to be that another resolution would be passed if Iraq fails to oblige it, the issue becomes fuzzier. Iraq did breach resolution 1441 as Blix had to admit reluctantly, but suddenly security council members did not want to make the decision they had earlier agreed. As there really isn't any real arbiter of international law (in the same sense as there are courts for domestic law), such situations have historically been settled by the right of strength - and so it did this time too.

Posted by: pp at November 21, 2003 12:44 PM

"...such situations have historically been settled by the right of strength - and so it did this time too."

And that makes it "completely legal".

Posted by: Faramin at November 21, 2003 07:27 PM

Faramin, exactly - that is how international law works.

Posted by: pp at November 22, 2003 06:09 AM

and being a student in international law I can tell you that might does not make right, nor did 1441 allow for the US to go to war against Iraq. Under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits any nation from using force except when force is employed under self-defense or with authorized by the UN Security Council. We know that Iraq had absolutely no capabilities whatsoever to threaten the security of the United State, so thats a moot point. The second issue gets more interesting. The language of 1441 dictates that Iraq that it will face "serious consequences" as a result of its continued violation of its obligations. However, this requires that the issue, "be reported to the Security Council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12" which in turn requires the Chairman of the Inspection Team to report to the Security Council, which will itself convene "immediately" to consider the situation and decide what to do. Thus no individual member may initiate an attack without the direct consent of the Security Council pursuant to Chapter VII. Moreover, under article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties, which is a codification of customary international law and thus binding on all states, we can look at the agreements between the parties of the treaties to interpret its scope. According to the travaux préparatoires France, China, Russia and Mexico all entered into agreement with the US and UK under the condition that "Resolution 1441...excludes an automaticity in the use of force." As Mary Ellen O'Connell, professor at Moritz School of Law, states, "While certain aspects of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 are remarkably vague, two things are clear. First, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein must accomplish a sequence of tasks over the next few months or almost certainly face serious consequences, most likely a US-led invasion. Second, in the event of non-compliance the United States is not automatically authorized to take unilateral military action to effect regime change in Iraq, certainly not before another meeting of the Security Council." Ergo, the US's actions are in contravention of international law and its as clear as water in Cameroon.

Posted by: Nema at November 22, 2003 07:10 AM

A good explanation.

One flaw. You said Iraq had "no capabilities whatsoever to threaten the security of the United States"

Iraq did have the ability to attack the U.S. and I believe it did so a number of times.

I cite Jayna Davis research (http://www.jaynadavis.com)

I cite Laurie Myroie's research (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006009771X/qid=1069517185/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-0985402-0706539?v=glance&n=507846)

I cite Feith's memo, which is challanged not for its accuracy, but for the means of its release. Iraq/al-Qa'ida contacts began in 1990 and continued through to mid-March 2003, and he details 50 points. Feith's memo is best viewed as an outline of the relationship. It contains the highlights, but it is far from exhaustive.

Saddam's linkage to 9/11 is yet to be fully understood, but the evidence does exist. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2091354/)

Secretary of State Albright had good reason for including Iraq among the seven countries designated as state sponsors of international terrorism, including Iraq's sponsorship of an attempt to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait City in 1993.

Iraq provided the fake identity papers for two key conspirators in the 1993 bombing of the WTC.

Iraq gave shelter to one of the accused in that bombing up to the time of the recent war.

It has been shown thay Bin Laden requested that (Brigadier Salim), Iraqi intelligence's premier explosives maker rmain with him in Sudan, and Iraqi Intelligence agreed.

This is the tip of the iceberg.

There can no longer be any serious argument about whether Hussein's Iraq worked with bin Laden and al-Qa'ida to plot against Americans.

Therefore it is clear that America had significant national security concerns with regards to Saddam Hussein, and i beleive acted in self defence.

Posted by: stephen at November 22, 2003 08:23 AM

I won't go into detail attacking the scope of threats posed by Saddam Hussein, but I do want to make some comments. The evidence cited by the US administration was used to site preemptive self-defense, not self-defense in its traditional form. The 9/11 example is clearly defunct. The president himself acknowledged that Hussein was not behind the attacks despite what Fox News feeds its public. With respect to harboring terrorists who carried out attacks on American soil or against American personel, the UN charter only permits the use of force in self-defense in response to actual or imminent attack. The two examples Bush cites are therefore the "grave and gathering danger" threat posed by Iraq in its alleged acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and connections to terrorist cells, in particular Ansar-al-Islam, as cited by Powell in his address to the Security Council in February. The first justification is the "preemptive" self defense doctrine which was deferred to the IAEA and Hans Blix in accordance to resolution 1441. As I explained earlier and in sufficient detail, the US was not allowed to go to war against Iraq on the basis of proposed weapons of mass destruction and that another resolution allowing invasion would be needed. Second even had Iraq harbored terrorists in its territory which attacked the US, the US is under the obligation to demonstrate that there was a direct link by the state actor to the non-state actor (i.e. Ansar al-Islam or Al-Qaeda). From my understanding the link between the orgnizations is both tenous and arguable with the state department evidently failing to demonstrate its burden of proof. In fact there is no claim or publicly disclosed evidence that Iraq is supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. Therefore, Iraq has not attacked any state, nor is there any showing whatever that an attack by Iraq is imminent. Therefore the US cannot lawfully attack Iraq on the basis of self-defense. Now let me sideline the issue for two seconds. Whether or not Iraq is now better based on an invasion by the US is independent of whether is it allowable under international law. The legalities of the attack is certainly a breach of international law in that A) it was not self-defense in any conventional form and B) it was not authorized by the Security Council.

Posted by: Nema at November 22, 2003 11:12 AM

Nema, well I guess we have to agree that we disagree. Resolution 1441 was both vague and contradictory mainly to suit the German, French and Russian sensibilities and in the case of the latter two to protect their concessions in Iraq. In addition to resolution 1441 we would also have to consider the effect of previous resolutions and the fact that the first Gulf War never ended - neither de facto nor de jure. TBH I never really understood why the US wanted to get resolution 1441 in the first place.

I cannot remember any case in history where might wasn't right in international law, can you correct me? In Kosovo there wasn't even an attempt at conducting the thing legally, but might makes right and everybody accepted the result as legal. Soviet Union occupied a bunch of countries and the vast majority of the international community accepted it as legal (and what the international community accepts as legal is legal - I hope we can agree on that). Soviet Union engaged in active colonisation of occupied territories strictly prohibited in several treaties the Soviet Union was part of (and I don't think you can find an international law textbook that doesn't mention that you cannot colonise occupied territories) but in real life nobody considers it illegal. Even in this Iraqi case, unless due to internal politics the US itself declares the action illegal, the claim that it might have been illegal will be almost forgotten by history (like it has with Kosovo and so many other cases).

International law really isn't like ordinary domestic law even though some scholars like to think it like that. The distinction between international politics and law are just too vague.

Posted by: pp at November 23, 2003 03:59 AM

PP,

I respect your comments but simply put they're not true. International law is derived from a variety of sources such as treaties, customary rules of international law, general principles, and the opinion of jurists to name a few. They are a coherent body of texts and opinions which outline what the law is. Sometime there are conflicts, but thats the case with law in general, be it domestic or international. Moreover, there is a distinct difference between international politics and international law and might doesn't make right. When the US interfered in Nicaragua the International Court of Justice held that it was a violation of international law. Despite the countless numerous acts of violence committed against their populous by African countries, the African Commission on Human and People's Rights has held them in violation of several articles under the UN Charter, the Covenants, and the African Charter. Thus might doesn't make right, nor is international law ambigious. In the case of Iraq, the UN Charter is very specific that the Chapter VII powers of the Security Council are binding upon all states. Moreover, the interpretation of resolution 1441 is bound to the principles of customary international law, including the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which has been ratified by the US. Moreover, there were stipulations in the resolution itself which demanded certain pre-conditions to be fulfilled. All of this has been detailed in my previous posts. There is one issue I'd like to point out which I think has caused some confusion. International law is as clear as domestic law but differs in one fundamental aspect, which is that there is no international agency which can regulate international law, like police forces do in domestic cases. This is not to say that the law itself is ambigious, but that the dimensions behind enforcing the law are vastly different then domestic law, or even regional cases. Consequently, this can mean that a country like the US, or Israel, or Iran, or Iraq, (to name a few) can get away with committing acts contrary to international law. Such is the case in the US's invasion of Iraq.

Posted by: Nema at November 23, 2003 10:49 AM