Table of content
Conflict between the US and Iraq
Weapons of Mass Destruction( WMD)
States That Joined the United States in the Iraq War
Rationale for States in The Iraq War
International Law is the guidelines set up by a binding contract that nations agree and provision of a framework to relate with other states in a homogeneous manner. International law main agenda is to promote peaceful and stable environment among states globally. The act of nations entering into treaties agreed upon by a representation of countries around the world depicts the image of International law. The basis of the international law is rooted in the tenets of jus gentium that represent the rules of nations and jus inter gentes representing the agreements among states. An example of the ancient formulation of international law is the famous Geneva Convention of 1864 which sets out the rules and regulations in international wars.
The legality of international law is ascertained by various schools of thought like the Austrian who view the law as a ground to foster vertical transmission of power among the super power nations. To them the international law is geared towards the idea of coerciveness for other nations to benefit in one way or the other. Based on the rational thinking school of thought the legality of international law cannot be questioned as it is aimed at the states fostering their vested interests and greed for power to rule over other states (Trehan, 2013, p.3).
The United Nations has been on the front line in ensuring international law is embraced by the member states. The principle legal source of Jus ad Bellum derived from the UN Charter limits all nations to certain criteria of acting in war. Close to that is the jus in Bello derived from the principles of the Geneva conventions that set out the laws of war. The above methodologies heavily were drawn from the UN charter and internationally adhered by states (Ratner, 2002, p. 6).
The proliferation of weapon of mass destruction among nations has raised concern in diversifying the essence of international law, such that the WMD threat is entirely connected to the international law. The implications and impact in confronting the use of international law in combating the use of WMD state the purpose of this paper on how effective is the International Law in dealing with the Weapons of Mass Destruction menace.
Conflict between the US and Iraq
The justification for the conflict between the Iraq and the United States government raises controversies as to whether either state were to engage each other in war. The Unites States claims that the Iraq Resolution was formed purposefully to stop and destroy the weapons of mass destruction that the Iraq government was secretly manufacturing. After the Persian Gulf War between Iraq and Iran, the United States government puts a watch on Iraq activities (Fisher, & Biggar, 2011, p. 691)
The conflict was greatly triggered by the supporting evidence that Saddam Hussein was in disguise developing weapons of mass destruction presenting a global threat to all the nations. The Iraq government was notified of the same and refused to admit to the claims causing the United Nations member states to form a commission concerned with the investigation of the matter.
The period between 2001 to 2003 the UN Monitoring and Verification Commission and the International Atomic Energy were authorized to investigate the claims being forwarded to Iraq by the United States government. The move by the United Nations to persuade Iraq to disarm were fruitless as no weapons of mass destruction were retrieved from any plant in Iraq. The sitting president of the US at that period defied orders from the United Nations Council and launched an attack sparking up the conflict that had been suppressing back from the Gulf War in the 1990’s.
The United States faced several criticisms from the United Nations Member States in violating the aspect of International Humanitarian Law embedded in the Geneva Conventions of 1864. After the invasion, the concerned commissions launched thorough frisking on the Iraq ground, concluding that no weapons were recovered, but the program activities associated with the manufacture of the weapon of mass destruction were evident. The US government unearthed chemical and biological laboratories responsible for the pilot testing of the weapons of mass destruction.
The Al Hakum was a specialized facility created for biological warfare munitions but registered as a chicken feed company. According to the reports from the Central Intelligence Agencies some of the weapons had already been tested, citing a case of missing prisoners of war from the registry of prisons proved the bio-weapons are tested on them. Although they failed in proving the existence of the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, they managed to capture the chief mastermind of the Persian Gulf war Saddam Hussein.
The government was toppled ending the dominance of the dictatorial regime changing the policy making decision mechanisms in Iraq. The failure to locate the actual site for the breeding of weapons of mass destruction led to a great controversy between the United States government and other states.
The United States took the blame as most nations argued there were individual vested interests of the US in Iraq. The international laws signed by both states were not taken into consideration based on the fact that Iraq broke the protocols of the international humanitarian law. The Iraq action of using biochemical warfare in conquering states violated the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and the 1993 Chemicals Weapons Convention. Due to the evidence produced by the United States government. The conflict between the US and the Iraq did not respect the binding contract of international law signed (Fidler, 2004, p.3).
The Persian Gulf war involved the Iraq government, and majorly the Republic of Kuwait ran nearly for a decade. The conflict stemmed up from the accusations made by the Ba’athist Iraq that the Kuwaitian are stealing from their oil reserves at the border. Saddam Hussein launched an attack on Kuwait with the aim of conquering back their oil reserves. The actual mitigating factors in the war on Kuwait is said to be based on the huge debt the Iraq government had accumulated in their conflict against the Iran’s (Fisher, & Biggar, 2011, p.689). The need to service the loan made them draft a plan on coming up with mechanisms of sourcing finances, and the only way was to take forcefully from the Kuwait Government.
The invasion was received with mixed reactions from the global world where every state condemned the war and the United Nations Security Council called Iraq to back down and cease the takeover activities in Kuwait. Having failed to adhere to the obligations of the UN Security Council, Operation Desert Shield was launched to stop the Iraq forces from entering Kuwait. The operation comprised of support from North Atlantic Treaty Organizations, Egypt and the victims of war, the Kuwait armed forces. The retaliation started what the Gulf War was.
The war escalated with increased attacks from the Iraq forces causing the United States to embark on the use of the necessary means of reclaiming back the Kuwait government. The use of extreme force by the United States forces led to the launch of another operation code named Operation Desert Shield, which used latest military technology on the ground with the aim of minimizing damage at all costs (Fisher, & Biggar, 2011, p. 703).
The Persian Gulf War was called off by President Bush after Saddam Hussein agreeing to a peace deal that would not infringe on Kuwait sovereignty and agree to the disarmament of the weapons of mass destruction. There were several violations in as per the international humanitarian law that both the Iraq and the United States did. According to the international humanitarian law specifically the agreement of 1980 concerning the conventional weapons conventions was violated. The excessive and necessary force used by the United States went beyond breaking the code of conduct of the laws relating to wars and conflicts.
Weapons of Mass Destruction( WMD)
The claim that Iraq was home to the chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are a tough and controversial up to date. The credibility of the information is in question with no circumstantial evidence presented. After the post-invasion period of the Gulf War, there was thorough disarmament within Iraq states, and the major aim were to try and solve the mystery of the production of weapons of mass destruction that was the threat if it was allowed to be used in warfare as planned by the late Saddam Hussein. International Law caters for the conduct of conflict and war. The International Humanitarian Law sought the universality in limiting all that pertains to armed conflict (Fidler, 2004, p. 12).
The law as a branch of the international law within the UN Charter prohibits the use of certain weaponry and military tactics to secure the protection and well being of the civilians, belligerents and prisoners of war. According to the Geneva Convention, the agreement of 1980 on the weapon Conventions and its protocols provides the applicable standards of weaponry to be used in armed conflicts. The 1993 agreement by the UN member states provide a summary of the use of chemical weapons in warfare, and lastly the 1972 agreement clearly explains the impact of the use of biological weapons during conflicts.
The issue of weapons of mass destruction is not well covered in the international law as it only establishes the legal justifications for the option to use force when required but does not provide a clear and detailed definition of what the weapon of mass destruction entails. The development of weapons of mass destruction clearly was prohibited by the international law among nations, and further its use is monitored in the International Humanitarian Law and the armed conflict treaties.
The worst terrorist attack that went down in history was on the September 9/11/2001. The attack launched by an Islamic terror group commonly known as Al-Qaeda led by a Saudi fugitive with the names Osama Bin Laden. The attack on Pentagon Military Headquarters caused the structural collapse of the building leading to the death of at least 3000 people and scores injured (Ender, 2010, p. 401). T
he prime purpose of the attack by the terrorist group who claimed responsibility in open media channels was based on the United States continued support for the Israel attack on Iraq and Palestine. Also, viewed as collateral were their retaliation attacks in the Iraq, Kuwait and Iran war famously known as the Persian Gulf War and the continued camping off the United States forces in the Middle East? The attack sheds more light on the international law as a new international order that determined how the global world is to address war and conflict situations without infringing the peace of civilians.
States That Joined the United States in the Iraq War
The Iraq invasion by the United States combined the different set of forces from various states in the northern region named as the Multi-National Force- Iraq. Due to the fear of the Iraq state possessing weapons of mass destruction, there was the need to combine armed forces to cater for the unprecedented unfolding of events (Paust, 2014, p. 1).
The United Kingdom was on the front line in supporting the US, Australia also joined the invasion through the provision of military personnel and Poland formed the last fourth military partners with close to 2000 soldiers sent to Iraq. The three mentioned countries assisted the United States in the invasion of the Iraq acting against the UN Charter.
States That Did Not Join the United States in the Iraq War
Several countries withdrew from the coalition of the Multinational force in Iraq after the Persian Gulf War. States such as Slovakia, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Portugal, Philippines, Spain, and Thailand. A focus on Canada showed it did not join the United States in the bid to end the Iraq War amid criticism from its leaders. Although the Canadians had participated in the support of the earlier Persian Gulf War, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not part of the bringing down of the existing dictatorial Iraq government.
Canada refused to be part of the conflict due to the irregularities that the attack was faced with. The United Nation Security Council had not authorized the attack on Iraq soil by the United States. According to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the invasion did not conform in any manner to the UN charter. The Council had sanctioned countries from the invasion based on the International law and the possibility of Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction.
Rationale for States in The Iraq War
In regards to international law codes partly the states were right to the joining the Allied forces in the invasion of the Iraq state. The Iraq state was perceived as a global threat to the development and use weapons of mass destruction. Based on article 2 (4) of the UN Charter a state is limited to using excessive force during war and conflict unless provided otherwise.
The United Nations Security Council provides a clause authorizing forceful means during warfare where the threat if not dealt with can cause detrimental effects. If Iraq was perceived as threat, then it was justified for the forming of the joint task force comprising of the military technical expertise from the various states (Ratner & Wippman, 2010, p. 21).
The country that did not participate in the invasion their rationale is tied up with the fact that the United Nation Security Council did not approve the invasion since it was a critical matter involving the alleged possession of nuclear weapons by Iraq. Based on the various reports from the United Nations commissions, there was the need for diplomacy in ceasing the Iraq war and not retaliation attacks. The fear of sanctions by the United Nations resulted in other countries not engaging in the invasion towards Iraq.
The post analysis of the results of the wars and conflicts like the Persian Gulf War and the Iraq war has immensely impacted on the current trends of the international law among states. The individualization of the international law is the major step learned from the past conflicts.
Instead of holding the whole state responsible for the injustices, personal accountability and responsibility are effective in the handling of international law matters. The introduction of the international criminal court sought to prosecute a state at individual perspectives.
Being concerned with the people that fostered the start of the conflict is a positive effect of the international law realized. The genocide case in Rwanda that saw the killing of 800000 persons saw individual prosecution happening. It signaled the proof that the international law is serving its mandate.
The failure of international law to address some of the major conflicts like the Persian Gulf war, Iraq- Iran conflict, the Iraq- Kuwait War and the conflict between the United States and the Iraq caused the attack on the Pentagon shows the ineffectiveness of the law.
The role of the international law is evident in the conflict management platform. The law sets out the conduct to be used during warfare periods and the weaponry to be used. Through the treaties and conventions signed by states cases of conflicts are minimized. The invasion of Kuwait by the Iraq government was termed as illegal, and several states of the United Nations sought to restore the sovereignty of Kuwait.
It was greatly streamlined by the guidelines within the international law. The international law also was concerned with the weaponry used during conflict setting out the weapons not to be used in warfare. These were clearly spelled out in the Geneva Convention, which formed part of the International Humanitarian Law (Ratner & Wippman, 2010, p. 21).
The international law has significantly impacted both negatively and positively in conflict and warfare management. Various scholars view the international law as a problem by itself with the failure of not dealing with the cross-cultural variations among states.
The international law is still weak as it was biased within the United Nations states only and not diverting its focus on the African and Asian states that are signatory members of the United Nations. Most of the conventions and notions are entirely westernized.
International law is growing too weak due to its tenets being entirely from the lessons learned from the effects of the world wars. Many of the international treaties and conventions were derived from the domestic practices in the past. The waves of conflicts like the cross-border terrorism are not highlighted.
The need for international law to take a unilateral approach rather than depending on the westernized experiences will result in an effective and inclusive international law. The international law grew weaker as more conflicts arose. The Attack on the United States proved the inability of the law to deal with terrorism as it was not featured in the international law.
References list
Ender, M. G. (2010). War Causes and Consequences. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 39(4), 399-402.
Fidler, D. P. (2004). International Law and Weapons of Mass Destruction: End of the Arms Control Approach. Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L., 14, 39.
Fisher, D., & Biggar, N. (2011). Was Iraq an unjust war? A debate on the Iraq war and reflections on Libya*. International Affairs, 87(3), 687-707.
Kalshoven, F., & Zegveld, L. (2011). Constraints on the waging of war: an introduction to international humanitarian law. Cambridge University Press.
Paust, J. J., (2014). Controlling Prohibited Weapons and the Illegal Use of Permitted Weapons 28 McGill Law Journal 608 (1983); University of Houston Law Center No. 2014 A 52. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2451299
Ratner, S. R. (2002). Jus ad bellum and jus in bello after September 11. Am. J. Int’l L., 96, 905.
Ratner, S. R., & Wippman, D. (2010). International law: norms, actors, process: a problem oriented approach. Aspen Pub.
Trehan, K. (2013). The Legality of International Law. Available at SSRN 2310959. Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc.
.