(no subject)

[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.

Comments

[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?

[pozorvlak.livejournal.com]

Could you post your answer here when you're done? I for one would like to read it.

[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.