The war in Iraq, called the third Gulf war follows the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait which lasted from August 1990 to February 1991. It is difficult to date the beginning, because the United States and the United Kingdom had begun to bomb Iraq in 1992, bringing with them by force of "no-fly zones." After a lull of several years, attacks have resumed, culminating in Operation Desert Fox (16-19 December 1998), in which more missiles were reportedly dropped during the war of 1991. On September 11, 2001, the United States was struck by a terrorist attack claimed to be the master plan of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda. Therefore, they felt that they must fight new threats and be prepared to use armed force with the support of the international community or unilaterally. Considering that Iraq is one of those threats, the United States emphasized the frequency of bombing and invading the territory. After several years of military preparations, Operation Iraqi Freedom was officially launched on March 19, 2003. The President of the United States, George W. Bush, in a televised speech addressed the nation in these terms: "at this time the U.S. forces and coalition of more than 35 countries are in the first phase of military operations to disarm the Iraq, to free its people and defend the world from grave danger." On March 20, 2003, the invasion of Iraq led to the rapid defeat of the Iraqi army. Unlike the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait in 1991, the situation in 2003 was described as non-intervention and war. Indeed, the first was endorsed by the Security Council and became a part of collective action in order to punish Iraq within a common interest. Conversely, the conflict in Iraq was not individualistic and aimed at only serving the interests of the United States.
[...] The Charter provides that the defense is legitimate, " if a member of the UN is the object of an armed attack." However, no coalition of states has been the victim of aggression by Iraq, which makes their actions go beyond the scope of self-defense. As a result, the war in Iraq was justified by the concept of preventive self-defense. This corresponds to an enormous expansion of the concept of self-defense, because it justifies the use of armed force when there was no aggression or immediate threat (which corresponds to the pre-emptive self- defense). Contrary to what some may believe, the father of the concept of preventive self-defense was not the Bush administration. [...]
[...] First it considered the terrorist attacks in Iraq as a strike against the occupation force, while the various political and social forces saw them as acts of resistance from the Iraqi people. It created a multinational force composed of military forces of member states of the United Nations and under the command of the Authority. Although under the mandate of the United Nations, it was not a UN force, but an "army" made available to the United States. The resolution also stated that the Authority " temporarily has the responsibilities, powers and obligations granted to him under applicable international law [ . [...]
[...] To assess the implications of this war, both in law and in practice, we will first study how the outbreak of conflict has been opposed to international law and then study why the situation of Iraq after the official end of the war has not really improved (II). I / The outbreak of a conflict which was contrary to international standards Whether formulated to appease the public or international institutions the arguments of the United States were based on an unfounded argument. [...]
[...] B / Diverted legal foundations The outbreak of the war in Iraq is contrary to Article 2 & 4 of the Charter which prohibits the use of the threat or use of armed force. This rule is based on the inclusion of Briand / Kellogg, who had been outlawed in the war in 1928. This principle of prohibition of use of force was gradually consolidated as a customary rule, as evidenced by a decision of the International Court of Justice on the matter of military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua in 1986, thus making it an important aspect of international law. [...]
[...] Kheradi The implications of the war in Iraq, international conference of Angers, Paris, Pedone O. Corten, "Operation Iraqi Freedom: can we accept the argument of implied authorization of the Security Council?"RBDI, 2003-1, pp. 205-247. R. Kheradi, "Sovereignty of Iraq to the test of occupation", in D. Maillard Desgrées of Lou The evolution of sovereignty, conference of Angers, Paris, Montchrestien pp . 139-154. H. Tigroudja, "The occupation regime in Iraq," AFDI pp . 77-101. R. Ben Achour, "Resolution 1546 of the Security Council or the height of the art of fiction," News and International Law, July 2004, www.ridi.org / adi O. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
