Tearing up the rules: the illegality of invading Iraq

The central question that this report seeks to answer is: can the U.S. and U.K lawfully attack Iraq—either with Security Council approval or, in the absence of such approval, on the basis of previous Council resolutions or under the principle of self-defense? The motivation behind the writing of this report lies in the fact that despite the overwhelming public opposition to a war against Iraq in almost every country in the world, except the U.S., the war has been declared. This highlights the need to derive legitimacy from somewhere other than the will of the people.

The report is divided into five sections:

• an introduction to the purpose of international law and the content of this report
• a discussion of the general prohibition against force established by the U.N. Charter, and an introduction to the two primary exceptions that provide for the lawful use of force: legitimate self-defense and Security Council authorization
• an assessment of whether U.S. and U.K justifications for invading Iraq fit within the selfdefense exception under the U.N. Charter and customary international law, or under the disputed doctrine of humanitarian intervention
• as assessment of whether war can be legally justified either with or without express Security Council authorization
• conclusions regarding the legality of the use of force against Iraq and specific recommendations for achieving a law-based resolution to the crisis

The authors assert that this report demonstrates that war against Iraq cannot be justified under any reasonable interpretation of international law. U.S. and U.K. arguments in support of attacking Iraq are based, in essence, on the unilateral right of powerful states to preempt even the possibility of future threats from other states, no matter how speculative or remote. This position is manifestly illegal, and constitute an act of aggression within the legal definition of a crime against peace.