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...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-12 09:35 am (UTC)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...