Turn on thread page Beta

UK: "Invasion of Iraq had no legal basis" watch

Announcements
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    A pity, and perhaps rather 'convenient', that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi is no longer alive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    I think he probably was. The UN has to expect that people will interpret ambiguously drafted resolutions in different ways. The whole point of international law is that it reflects international practice. It isn't like you can look it up international law in a statute like you can with other types of law.
    UN Charter? Unless acting in self-defence (Article 51), a state must have authorisation from the UN Security Council to launch an armed conflict.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kentishman)
    Because, given the destruction and damage war causes, it should be just?
    But surely the aim of war is to destroy and overcome your opponent?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sakina101)
    But surely the aim of war is to destroy and overcome your opponent?

    Yes, but you need to justify doing so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Potally_Tissed)
    Yes, but you need to justify doing so.
    Oh okay, gone are the days when you could attack someone for merely pissing you off.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sakina101)
    But surely the aim of war is to destroy and overcome your opponent?
    In many cases, yes. War is an extension of political aims. But we live in a world where it is not acceptable for states to launch wars purely out of national self-interest. We have moved on from the Westphalia order of states. Therefore, save in self-defence, they have to be authorised by the Security Council. Even the manner in which a state fights a war is checked by international law.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kentishman)
    UN Charter? Unless acting in self-defence (Article 51), a state must have authorisation from the UN Security Council to launch an armed conflict.
    The problem is that art 51 is very ambiguous. It reads as follows:

    "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security"

    It talks of an "inherent right" to self-defence, and it doesn't say what happens if the Security Council does not take the measures necessary to "maintain or restore international peace and security". Given that its pretty damn difficult to pass anything in the Security Council these days because Russia, China and the U.S. all have a veto, I don't think a strict reading of art 51 is workable.

    (Original post by UGeNe)
    So you are saying one can interpret international law any which way is more convenient at the time?
    No, I'm saying that you have to make allowances where there is genuine ambiguity. The resolutions passed by the UN in the last Gulf War were genuinely ambiguous and seemed to countenance the further use of force if Saddam didn't comply with the obligations imposed on him after the war. If the UN passes resolutions like it did, I don't think it can complain when States rely on those resolutions.

    If the UN wants to unambiguously prevent allow or disallow something, then it needs to pass clear resolutions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    The problem is that art 51 is very ambiguous. It reads as follows:

    "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security"

    It talks of an "inherent right" to self-defence, and it doesn't say what happens if the Security Council does not take the measures necessary to "maintain or restore international peace and security". Given that its pretty damn difficult to pass anything in the Security Council these days because Russia, China and the U.S. all have a veto, I don't think a strict reading of art 51 is workable.
    Yes, practically speaking, Art.51 is flawed. Where does self-defence stop? Expelling the antagonist from your territory? Or full out annexation? Not to even mention the difficulties of states justfying war through pre-mediatated self defence.

    The political divide of the SC is one of the most important reforms needed for the UN.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sakina101)
    But surely the aim of war is to destroy and overcome your opponent?
    War being just doesn't mean a war where they invade a country, shake their hands, settle an agreement over tea, then leave. Obviously, that wouldn't be a war.

    Look at the Just War theory, which states:

    ius ad bellum,
    ius in bello

    In other words, right reason to go to war, right conduct within the war.

    No legal basis = no right reason to go to war = unjust war.

    If there was a real reason to go to war, THEN the war would be just (along with the right conduct within war, of course).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    They lied to get in. There was no ''nuclear'' warheads or weapons of mass destruction found. Not even 1
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    they had our damn oil.
    what is complicated?
    we wanted it, we got it. end.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I still don't really get why we're at war anyway. I thought the original plan was to destroy Al Qaeda and find some weapons of mass destruction which funnily enough haven't appeared and now it seems the war has turned into the war on the Taliban...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thetroll)
    It's been all over every news outlet all day, but if you're really having trouble, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8479996.stm
    So I'm reading that, and it appears to me that what it actually says is "It's arguable whether the invasion of Iraq was legal or not; Sir Michael Wood thought it wasn't."

    So, really, there's been no revolutionary break through or anything, it's just the abuse of quotation marks to provoke a sensationalist response.

    Wouldn't have expected much more from this forum, I suppose.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What do you need to do or get before you can legally invade a country? I'd love to give it a go.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gardocki)
    What do you need to do or get before you can legally invade a country? I'd love to give it a go.
    Scotland is going to invade England in this century?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    Scotland is going to invade England in this century?
    If a country can do it then surely an individual can. All I need is a couple of guns and the necessary legal clearance to invade somewhere warmer and try and claim it as my own without it being reported as a lone nutter, but as a legal and unsuccessful war, in the media afterwards. Invading England wouldn't be worth it - their weather is almost as rubbish as ours.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It does mean that the War on Iraq violated International Law.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 19, 2010
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.