mi_guida: (terrible creatures squirrels)
[personal profile] mi_guida
So, I'm finally writing an essay on the question that everyone gets asked when they become a law student. Sadly, I will no longer be able to dodge the question. Oh dear.

Unfortunately, the answer is still, it seems, "I'm not really sure, no one can quite agree." Still, nice to know I wasn't lying all the times I said that before.

For those who are curious: Consider whether the following actions were lawful and, if so, what was their legal basis: (a) the coalition usage of force against Iraq in 1991 in order to retake Kuwait and the US-UK use of force against Iraq in 2003; (b) NATO’s intervention in Kosovo; (c) the Anglo-American intervention in Afghanistan.

Date: 2008-02-12 09:17 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] neoanjou.livejournal.com
Is the first one implying that one should consider the first two as one? As I understand it we (the UK) went to war on behalf of Kuwait on the grounds of some kind of defence treaty, which would make it, at the very least, a different situation, legally, surely?

But I can understand that its very complicated - venturing into the realms of legal philosophy, who had the rights to make laws, and who should they cover?

Date: 2008-02-12 09:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mi-guida.livejournal.com
I'll post my answer when I'm done, but in brief...

We've already established in International Law who can and can't make the law for whom and on what subject matter, so it doesn't come into it in this essay.

The two Iraq campaigns follow on from one another - no treaties, but the first was, arguably, based on Resolution 678 - Security Council Resolutions allow State to derogate from the customary and UN Charter provision against the use of force by states. The 2003 invasion had no specific SCR authorising the use of force, so in that, yes, it is different, but the UK and the US argued that the authorisation in Resolution 678 extended to enforcing Resolutions 687 and 1441. This is a dodgy argument, essentially, which was comforting to me as at the time I wrote a long essay on how the war was unjust on the moral theory of Just War. Two sides of the coin, as it were. If people want to see that one too, from my A-level days, they're welcome to...

Date: 2008-02-12 10:00 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mejoff.livejournal.com
I was under the impression that pretty much every legal expert in the UK except the ones whose jobs rely on saying 'yes' very loudly at the precisely correct moment came up with the invasion of Iraq being illegal...

Date: 2008-02-12 09:26 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pozorvlak.livejournal.com
Could you post your answer here when you're done? I for one would like to read it.

Date: 2008-02-12 09:31 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mi-guida.livejournal.com
Can I post it when I've had it marked and tidied it up?! The one I sent last night is clunky, but I'm thinking that for revision purposes I might try to neaten it up once I get it back...

Date: 2008-02-12 09:58 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] foulds.livejournal.com
My solutions:

1.) Restraining orders. US and UK must stay at least 200 miles from the Middle East at all times.

2.) Eye for eye justice; Iraq is now permitted 2 free invasions of both our countries.


mi_guida: (Default)

June 2009

21222324 252627

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 09:27 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios