The legality or otherwise of the 2003 invasion of Iraq

Abstract

Abstract provided

International law, as with every other legal system, seeks to prevent its subjects from using violence to settle their differences. However, before 1928 international law did not outlaw war or the use of force by states. The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War, also known as the Pact of Paris or the Kellogg- Briand Pact, in terms of which states condemned recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another was signed in 1928. Although adopted outside the framework of the now defunct League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations, the Kellogg-Briand Pact remains in force, with its provisions now subsumed by that of the United Nations Charter, which outlaws both war and the use of force. This prohibition on the use of force has evolved into the cornerstone of the United Nations system, this being illustrated by the International Court of Justice's pronunciation of the rule as a rule of customary law. Although not always observed, the prohibition on the use of force amongst nations is recognized as a norm with the status of jus cogens. Despite the general prohibition on the use of force as mentioned earlier, there are certain exceptional circumstances under which the use of force is permitted

In 2003, another U.S led military operation in the Middle East was launched when British, Spanish, Polish, Danish and Australian forces joined the U.S military in the initial invasion of Iraq. As a result of, inter alia, the provisions of the Kellogg-Briand Pact and article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter the legality of the invasion of Iraq has been questioned by various stakeholders'.This paper questions whether the U.S led invasion of Iraq ought to have given rise to legal liability on the part of the invading forces, in terms of international law