From Unity to Polarization: International Law and the Use of Force against Iraq

Gray, Christine

doi:10.1093/ejil/13.1.1

Cited by 38 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Rosalyn Higgins has thus argued that though the use of the veto by the five Permanent Members of the Security Council has been viewed as being problematic in arriving at decisions under Article 42 of the UN Charter, -the veto is an integral part of what was provided for in the Charter: the Permanent Members were certainly intended to have this power to control the use of force by the Security Council‖ (Higgins 1994, p.262). Christine Gray further argues that the Security Council, during and after the Cold War, has generally avoided determining an aggressor in inter-state conflicts (Gray 2002). Consequently, one of the logical implications of determining an aggressor, i.e.…”

Section: The Law Relating To the Use Of Force In The Un Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unilateral Enforcement of Un Security Council Resolutions: The Case of Operation Iraqi Freedom

Ansong

2018

Journal of Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The prohibition of armed aggression under Article 2(2) of the United Nations Charter is one of the most important developments in international law and international relations in the modern era. The fact that the right to wage war is no longer accepted as falling within the sovereignty of the state has ushered in an appreciably stable international order based on the rule of law and not the rule of might. While states obviously still engage in warfare and numerous wars have been fought by states in the era of the UN, the very fact that the prohibition of armed aggression has assumed universal acceptance as customary international law is a notable achievement. In spite of the prohibition of armed aggression under the UN Charter, self-defence and collective action mandated by the UN Security Council serve as notable exceptions. The US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 (i.e. Operation Iraqi Freedom) was peculiar because, the justification for the invasion hinged on the enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions. This justification thus brought to the fore whether, under international law, there was the right to unilaterally enforce Security Council Resolutions. In the current resurgence of unilateralism typified by the US Trumpled withdrawal or threat of withdrawal from multilateral systems of international governance and cooperation, it is important to reiterate the lessons of unilateralism epitomized by the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the instabilities that have become offshoots of this invasion – e.g. the creation of monsters like the so-called Islamic State. This article discusses the resort to unilateralism under the guise of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. It also engages in a brief discussion on the justifications for war prior to the UN Charter and the provisions on the use of force prescribed in the Charter. It uses the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 as a case study to shed light on legality of unilateral enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions.

show abstract

Section: The Law Relating To the Use Of Force In The Un Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unilateral Enforcement of Un Security Council Resolutions: The Case of Operation Iraqi Freedom

Ansong

2018

Journal of Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These reports, however, were based on forged documents. U.S. officials concluded that the stories were intended to "result in maximum embarrassment" and "to discredit the U.S. in Spain at a time 84 "Greeks March in Protest of U.S. bases," Moscow TASS, July 16, 1985, tr. in Daily Report, Soviet Union, FBIS-SOV-85-137, July 17, 1985.…”

Section: Incitingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Access Granted: Political Challenges to the U.S. Overseas Military Presence, 1945--2014

Pettyjohn¹,

Kavanagh²

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…50 Näiteks Põhja-ja Lõuna-Iraagis 1990. aastatel rakendatud lennukeelutsoone kurdide ja šiiitide kaitseks põhjendati samuti humanitaarse vajadusega. 51 Aga see põhjendus ei sobinud siiski kokku liitlaste sõjalise operatsiooni eesmärgiga 2003. aastal, samuti on humanitaarse interventsiooni õiguspärasus (olenemata võimalikest altruistlikest soovidest) endiselt väga küsitav.…”

Section: Ajaloolis-kultuuriline üLevaadeunclassified

Kümme aastat operatsioonist “Iraagi vabadus”: ajalooline, poliitiline ja õiguslik ülevaade ning Iraagi tulevikuperspektiivid

Mölder¹,

Sazonov²,

Värk³

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From Unity to Polarization: International Law and the Use of Force against Iraq

Cited by 38 publications

References 0 publications

Unilateral Enforcement of Un Security Council Resolutions: The Case of Operation Iraqi Freedom

Unilateral Enforcement of Un Security Council Resolutions: The Case of Operation Iraqi Freedom

Access Granted: Political Challenges to the U.S. Overseas Military Presence, 1945--2014

Kümme aastat operatsioonist “Iraagi vabadus”: ajalooline, poliitiline ja õiguslik ülevaade ning Iraagi tulevikuperspektiivid

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About