JISPIL Vol 1 Issue 1 2005 - A3




Whatever might have been the political expedients, the war in Iraq was contrary to the International Law.  Deeming it illegal, immoral and unilateral, 139 MPs of his own party opposed the resolution presented in the UK House of Commons, authorising the Prime Minister to go to war.  The UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, maintained that resolution 1441 required immediate and full cooperation of Iraq.  If these conditions were flouted (which he believed they were) then Iraq was in a material breach.  This meant that Iraq was liable to be subjected to serious consequences, which he equated to war, and thus the UK was justified to attack Iraq.  He opined that, therefore, a fresh Security Council resolution was desirable but not essential.  The Prime Minister, Tony Blair shared this anomalous auto-interpretation of derogation from the most fundamental jus cogens of prohibition on the use of force contained in Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter.


In its overall assessment, the paper is highly critical of the war in Iraq.  The author is firmly of the view that regardless of the political expediencies and claim of building democracy, without the mandate from the Security Council the invasion was contrary to the international law.  He deplores the widely-known violations of the basic precepts of law stipulated by Geneva Conventions 1949 on the occupying States to protect the Iraqi civilians.  The author  argues that in the modern day international law, it is impermissible for individual States to act as world police man � the United States actions has established a dangerous precedent for other States. 

Please Sign in if already registered Subscriber.


Please Register and make the necessary subscription payment to activate your account.

Adobe Reader