In 2004, Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, explicitly declared that the United States-led war on Iraq was illegal and breached the United Nations’ charter (MacAskill & Borger, 2004). This is due to the war not having been approved or sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, nor was it in accordance with the UN’s founding charter (MacAskill & Borger, 2004). These facts beg the question; was the Iraq war a just war? More than that, was it illegal, and should the key players who drove it forward face prosecution for war crimes if this is the case? From the perspective of the United Nations’ Secretary General in 2004, this certainly was the case. Annan, while being interviewed, added unequivocally:
“I have indicated
…show more content…
It is a most egregious offence. Although the United States has been the subject of many accusations of being guilty of the Crime of Aggression, the Chief Prosecutor at the time of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, dismissed these accusations by stating it was not within the ICC’s jurisdiction to prosecute Crimes of Aggression (Williams, 2004, p.119). Despite this, it is clear that the Crime of Aggression was made- former UN Secretary General Koffi Annan stated so himself by declaring that the Iraq war breached the United Nations’ Charter. Next, the question of whether or not Crimes against Humanity took place arrives. What constitutes a crime against humanity? The ICTY in Tadic recalled that both the Nuremberg judgment and following ‘codifications of international law’ identify genocide and apartheid as two examples of the crime against humanity’s most egregious manifestations (Williams, 2004, p. 130). However, this does not exempt lesser atrocities from qualifying as crimes against humanity. As stated by the United Nations, Crimes against Humanity are defined
No matter how well intentioned the invasion of Iraq may have been, it was an act of violence and deception that has left many American men dead for no clear reason.
In August of 1992, President George Bush Sr. sent US soldiers into Somalia to provide humanitarian relief to those Somalis suffering from starvation. The major problems in Somalia started when President Mohammed Siad Barre was overthrown by a coalition of opposing clans. Although there were several opposing groups, the prominent one was led by Mohammed Farah Aidid. Following the overthrow of Barre, a massive power struggle ensued. These small scale civil wars led to the destruction of the agriculture in Somalia, which in turn led to the deprivation of food in large parts of the country. When the international community heard of this, large quantities of food were sent to ease Somali suffering. However, clan leaders like Aidid routinely hijacked food and exchanged it for weapons leaving thousands to starve to death. An estimated 300,000 Somalis died between 1991 and 1992 (Clancy 234-236). US soldiers were later sent into Somalia to capture Aidid, but when the operation got bloody, displeasing the American public, Clinton withdrew troops (Battersby 151). In The Morality of War, Brian Orend outlines ethical guidelines that should be followed in all three stages of war: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. Orend states that a nation can be moral going into war, but immoral coming out of one. Did the US act justly in all facets of the Somali conflict? The United States espoused all the guiding principles of jus ad bellum but right intent, upheld the principals of jus in bello, and clearly failed to uphold several aspects of jus post bellum during the armed humanitarian intervention in Somalia.
Saddam Hussein was a dictator, who through intimidation and force maintained his grasp on power. These are tactics used by many governments throughout the world, ironically including the Amercian government. Saddam had a history of human rights violations and corruption, although compared to other international leaders his transgressions can be considered moderate. For example, in countries such as Rwanda and Sudan far more extreme measures have been taken by leaders, while the international community did little. The Iraq war is based far more upon oil and power then it is freedom. Seemingly, the Bush Administration and their corporate allies saw an opportunity to control the world’s second largest supply of oil and thus, like any savvy businessman would do, exploited it.
In a war with no rules, it had been entirely ethical for extreme measures to have been taken. However, it was later shown in the Geneva Convention that it was unethical to attack enemy civilians. Even in earlier conventions, it had been shown to be illegal and immoral. In the instance of Hague IV, it had been shown and ratified by congress that attacking defenseless citizens or persons was wrong (2). This was not the only treaty or convention, as there had been multiple others previously. Therefore, it was unscrupulous and hypocritical for the United States to drop atomic bombs on the
The war of September 11, 2001, is war justified? In the case of self-defense, it can be. This was not an act of war, but of terrorism. There were no massed armies at United States doors open ready to take over. The plane bombing of three buildings resulted in many deaths and much monitory hardship. This is not a border confrontation, nor an invasion trying to take over. The body of United States was not in threat of losing life or limb. It was just hit with a well planned attack to wake it up and make it smell the coffee. The resulting bombs and missile attacks in Afghanistan are not justified at all, as people there are dying too. The people dying were not threatening United States with guns drawn. There are a handful of people who are responsible for the attack on United States. It would be warranted to kill those people, if they were actively ca...
Since this is true, states are less restrained by the potential risk of humanitarian consequences of their actions. However, global human rights norms do make a difference, but to what extent? This article explains that the U.S violated the fundamental norm to not target civilians on multiple occasions during the Iraq war, however it was not blatantly done; the targeting was done indirectly, and more secretive. The ability for the United States to commit these international crimes discretely, without repercussions displays the level of influence the United Nations has. However, when civilian targeting is discovered this is the point where international humanitarian norms come into play; states fear being shamed or illegitimated. Since the establishment of an international court there has been a reduction in this type of crimes against humanity. Actions such as torture during war has been significantly reduced because of its
In early 2003, the threat of Saddam Hussein and the possibility of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq captured the attention and concern of the world. One nation decided to illegally act on these unsubstantiated claims, invading the country, violating the UN Charter and breaking several international laws in the process. The penalizations that were subject to the invading country, the United States, were never carried out. The United State’s role and influence over the UN and the Security Council, along with the nature of the unenforceable, politics and power-based international laws, allowed them to escape sanctions after their invasion of Iraq. The United States did not have a legitimate reason for invading, and their ability to repudiate international law would be unacceptable for any other country. Their decision to invade Iraq was one based on money and politics, and the US should be subject to penalties just as any other nation would have to face after unnecessarily waging war on a nation.
In “Ethics and Intervention: The ‘Humanitarian Exception’ and the Problem of Abuse in the Case of Iraq, Alex Bellamy argues that war is only justified in exceptional cases where “supreme humanitarian intervention” is genuinely required (Bellamy, p. 137). Bellamy discusses the ethics of intervention and the decision of the US to invade Iraq. He provides the argument that international law does not provide moral reasoning on the issues of war. However, he acknowledges that it does provide an important foundation on the issue of legitimacy of war. He discusses two legal justifications for war, which include implied UN authorization and pre-emptive self-defense of that state. Neither of these is the case in Iraq, although the government may say
...perts agree that the air strikes against Kosovo by NATO were illegal because they were never authorized by the security council. However, libertarian expert cite humanitarian international law to justify NATO's actions. For example the former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that NATO was justified and its actions were legitimate and that a new form of intervention was emerging- for cases involving repression of minorities that will and must take precedence over other concerns of the law of states. Thus any fragrance violations of humanitarian law, be it crimes against humanity, violations of human rights in the Geneva convention or ethnic cleansing, may provide a legitimate basis for action on the part of international community because all of these have international consequences and go well beyond sacred principles of the domestic jurisdiction of state.8
The just war doctrine was written to define a justification for wars. Ultimately, the legality of wars is laid out by the UN Charter. The just war doctrine divides the laws concerning war into two parts. The first is when war is permissible (jus ad bellum), and the second is how a war is fought (jus in bello). A just war is separated from the principle of an aggressive war; just wars are legal, while wars of aggression are illegal (Goldstein, p.263). Aggression refers to a state using force against another state’s territory or sovereignty. According to the just war theory, although a war of aggression is illegal, a war that is fought in response to aggression is legal. This concept is the only allowable use of military force as stated in the just war doctrine. The just war theory evolves around the concept of aggression. In order for a situation to constitute aggression, the threat or use of force must be clearly visible. Since response to aggression is the only allowable use of military force, it is not legal to attempt to change another states government or their ideals. The UN Charter makes a point that war is no...
It is dishonest for American political leaders to state that terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and a brutal dictator were the reasons for invading Iraq because they orchestrated the wars and invasions Iraq had with our countries including the United States. The real reason the United States went to war with Iraq was that of their greed for power and control over Iraqi’s oil and drugs. The United States assisted in the overthrowing and assassination of the prime minister of Iraq and replaced him with Saddam Hussein because they believed that he would be a puppet that would follow with the plan they had set in motion. In 1968, Saddam Hussein came into power and the United States was ecstatic because they thought that the partnership with
SAINATI, TATIANA E. "Toward A Comparative Approach To The Crime Of Genocide." Duke Law Journal 62.1 (2012): 161-202. Academic Search Premier. Web. 25 Nov. 2013
When comparing the Holocaust and the atrocities in the Belgian Congo I was able to further understand the differences between crimes against humanity and genocides. Further more the impact they have on society, especially how easily it was for the Belgian government to wash out the permanent footprint they caused on the Congo. As previously stated, the main differences we could find were the monetary priorities established in the Belgian Congo and the motivations behind the ethnic extermination, which led to the Holocaust.
Kofi Annan’s life experiences that influenced him to work for the UN started when he went to a Methodist Boarding school, he was taught that "suffering anywhere concerns people everywhere." He then went on to study at four different colleges and got a masters degree in International Relations. He got a job with the UN as a budget official, and slowly worked his way up. For 9 years, he was an assistant Secretary General for 3 different organizations. While doing so, the Rwandan Genocide took place, and Annan was highly criticized for the way he handled it. He took responsibility for his actions. This lead to him finally being voted in to be the new Secretary-General, where he stayed for 10 years.
Hymowitz, Sarah, and Amelia Parker. "Lessons - The Genocide Teaching Project - Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law." American University Washington College of Law. American UniversityWashington College of Law Center for Human Rights and Humanitaian Law, 2011. Web. 9 Mar. 2011. .