Long title | Joint Resolution to authorise the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq |
---|---|
Nicknames | Iraq Resolution |
Enacted by | the 107th United States Congress |
Effective | October 16, 2002 |
Citations | |
Public law | Pub. L. 107–243 (text) (PDF) |
Statutes at Large | 116 Stat. 1498 |
Legislative history | |
|
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, [1] informally known as the Iraq Resolution, is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No. 107-243, authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces against Saddam Hussein's Iraq government in what would be known as Operation Iraqi Freedom. [2]
The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq: [3] [4]
The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
An authorization by Congress was sought by President George W. Bush soon after his September 12, 2002 statement before the U.N. General Assembly asking for quick action by the Security Council in enforcing the resolutions against Iraq. [5] [6]
Of the legislation introduced by Congress in response to President Bush's requests, [7] S.J.Res. 45 sponsored by Sen. Daschle and Sen. Lott was based on the original White House proposal authorizing the use of force in Iraq, H.J.Res. 114 sponsored by Rep. Hastert and Rep. Gephardt and the substantially similar S.J.Res. 46 sponsored by Sen. Lieberman were modified proposals. H.J.Res. 110 sponsored by Rep. Hastings was a separate proposal never considered on the floor. Eventually, the Hastert–Gephardt proposal became the legislation Congress focused on.
Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals, [3] [8] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296–133, [9] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77–23. [10] It was signed into law as Pub. L. 107–243 (text) (PDF) by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
Party | Ayes | Nays | Not Voting |
---|---|---|---|
Republican | 215 | 6 | 2 |
Democratic | 81 | 126 | 1 |
Independent | 0 | 1 | 0 |
TOTALS | 296 | 133 | 3 |
Party | Yeas | Nays |
---|---|---|
Republican | 48 | 1 |
Democratic | 29 | 21 |
Independent | 0 | 1 |
TOTALS | 77 | 23 |
Sens. Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Breaux (D-LA), Cantwell (D-WA), Carnahan (D-MO), Carper (D-DE), Cleland (D-GA), Clinton (D-NY), Daschle (D-SD), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND), Edwards (D-NC), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Hollings (D-SC), Johnson (D-SD), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lieberman (D-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Miller (D-GA), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Schumer (D-NY), and Torricelli (D-NJ).
Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).
Events leading up to the Iraq War |
---|
|
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit refused to review the legality of the invasion in 2003, citing a lack of ripeness.
In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war. [26]
Similar efforts to secure judicial review of the invasion's legality have been dismissed on a variety of justiciability grounds.
The vast majority of international legal scholarship contended that the war was an illegal war of aggression, and United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan stated in 2004 that the invasion was illegal, and that it was "not in conformity with the UN Charter". [27] [28]
Debate about the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq under international law, centers around ambiguous language in parts of U.N. Resolution 1441 (2002). [29] The U.N. Charter in Article 39 states: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".
The position of the U.S. and U.K. is that the invasion was authorized by a series of U.N. resolutions dating back to 1990 and that since the U.N. security council has made no Article 39 [30] finding of illegality, that no illegality exists.
Resolution 1441 declared that Iraq was in "material breach" of the cease-fire under U.N. Resolution 687 (1991), which required cooperation with weapons inspectors. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that under certain conditions, a party may invoke a "material breach" to suspend a multilateral treaty. Thus, the U.S. and U.K. claim that they used their right to suspend the cease-fire in Resolution 687 and to continue hostilities against Iraq under the authority of U.N. Resolution 678 (1990), which originally authorized the use of force after Iraq invaded Kuwait. [31] This is the same argument that was used for Operation Desert Fox in 1998. [32] They also contend that, while Resolution 1441 required the UNSC to assemble and assess reports from the weapons inspectors, it was not necessary for the UNSC to reach an agreement on the course of action. If, at that time, it was determined that Iraq breached Resolution 1441, the resolution did not "constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq". [33] The United States government argued, wholly apart from Resolution 1441, that it has a right of pre-emptive self-defense to protect itself from terrorism fomented by Iraq. [34]
It remains unclear whether any party other than the Security Council can make the determination that Iraq breached Resolution 1441, as U.N. members commented that it is not up to one member state to interpret and enforce U.N. resolutions for the entire council. [35] In addition, other nations have stated that a second resolution was required to initiate hostilities. [36]
On June 17, 2021, the House of Representatives voted for House Resolution 256, to repeal the 2002 resolution by a vote of 268–161. 219 House Democrats and 49 House Republicans voted to repeal, while 160 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted to oppose the repeal. [37]
In July 2021, three Senators, Christopher Murphy, Mike Lee & Bernie Sanders, introduced S.2391, the National Security Powers Act of 2021, which would have repealed previous war authorizations and established new procedures, [38] but a Senator put a quasi-anonymous hold on it in committee until it was dead. [39] Its companion in the House, H.R.5410, the National Security Reforms and Accountability Act, did not contain the repeal language (which prevented the Senators' attempt to repeal), [40] and again, this companion bill was quasi-anonymously held in committee til it was dead. [41]
On March 16, 2023, a bill (S. 316) to repeal the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs, introduced by Senators Tim Kaine and Todd Young, was advanced by the Senate by 68 votes to 27, [42] but its companion, H.R.932, has been quasi-anonymously held by a Representative in the House Committee on Foreign Affairs since February 9, 2023. [43]
On July 13, 2023, in a further attempt to repeal the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs, Tim Kaine & Todd Young introduced S.Amdt.427 to S.2226, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024. [44] But they didn't timely propose it on the floor so that when the bill passed the Senate, no action was taken on their amendment & it was therefore, by default, excluded by law. [45] The POTUS remains authorized by Congress to strike at will, any targets of his choosing in Iraq.
The Iraq disarmament crisis was claimed as one of primary issues that led to the multinational invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions. It provided a justification for the subsequent US invasion of Iraq.
In March 2003 the United States government announced that "diplomacy has failed" and that it would proceed with a "coalition of the willing" to rid Iraq under Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction the US and UK claimed it possessed. The 2003 invasion of Iraq began a few days later. Prior to this decision, there had been much diplomacy and debate amongst the members of the United Nations Security Council over how to deal with the situation. This article examines the positions of these states as they changed during 2002–2003.
The War Powers Resolution is a federal law intended to check the U.S. president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution. It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".
The United States is a charter member of the United Nations and one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Carl Milton Levin was an American attorney and politician who served as a United States senator from Michigan from 1979 to 2015. A member of the Democratic Party, he was the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee from 2001 to 2003 and again from 2007 to 2015.
A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. A document by the Federation of American Scientists gives an extensive listing and summary of statutes which are automatically engaged upon the United States declaring war.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, adopted on 29 November 1990, after reaffirming resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674 and 677, the council noted that despite all the United Nations efforts, Iraq continued to defy the Security Council.
The American Service-Members' Protection Act, known informally as the Hague Invasion Act, is a United States federal law described as "a bill to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party." The text of the Act has been codified as subchapter II of chapter 81 of title 22, United States Code.
The Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence was the report by the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concerning the U.S. intelligence community's assessments of Iraq during the time leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The report, which was released on July 9, 2004, identified numerous failures in the intelligence-gathering and -analysis process. The report found that these failures led to the creation of inaccurate materials that misled both government policy makers and the American public.
Events in the year 2002 in Iraq.
The use of force by states is controlled by both customary international law and by treaty law. The UN Charter reads in article 2(4):
All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
A dispute exists over the legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The debate centers around the question whether the invasion was an unprovoked assault on an independent country that may have breached international law, or if the United Nations Security Council authorized the invasion. Those arguing for its legitimacy often point to Congressional Joint Resolution 114 and UN Security Council resolutions, such as Resolution 1441 and Resolution 678. Those arguing against its legitimacy also cite some of the same sources, stating they do not actually permit war but instead lay out conditions that must be met before war can be declared. Furthermore, the Security Council may only authorise the use of force against an "aggressor" in the interests of preserving peace, whereas the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not provoked by any aggressive military action.
The Kerry and Feingold Amendment proposed the withdrawal of American armed forces from Iraq by July 2007 with the exception of a few to maintain security. The proposal was defeated in the United States Senate in an 86 to 13 vote.
British parliamentary approval for the invasion of Iraq was given by the elected members of the House of Commons to Tony Blair's government on the eve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, in a series of two votes, on 18 March 2003.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) is a joint resolution of the United States Congress which became law on September 18, 2001, authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the September 11 attacks. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11 attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was passed by the 107th Congress on September 18, 2001, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001. Since its passage in 2001, U.S. Presidents have interpreted their authority under the AUMF to extend beyond al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan to apply to numerous other groups as well as other geographic locales, due to the act's omission of any specific area of operations. In December 2016, the Office of the President published a brief interpreting the AUMF as providing Congressional authorization for the use of force against al-Qaeda and other militant groups. Today, the full list of actors the U.S. military is fighting or believes itself authorized to fight under the 2001 AUMF is classified.
Political leaders of the US and UK who led the arguments which resulted in the invasion of Iraq have claimed that the war was legal. However, legal experts, including the chairman of the Iraq Inquiry, John Chilcot, who led an investigation with hearings from 24 November 2009 to 2 February 2011, concluded that the process of identifying the legal basis for the invasion of Iraq was unsatisfactory and that the actions of the US and the UK have undermined the authority of the United Nations.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution or Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, was the United States Congress's January 14, 1991, authorization of the use of U.S. military force in the Gulf War.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013 is a United States federal law which specifies the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense for fiscal year 2013. The full title is An Act to Authorize Appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. This law has been assigned the number PL 112–239.
H.R.932 (118th), also known as To repeal the authorizations for use of military force against Iraq, is a bill in the 118th United States Congress that would have repealed the 2002 AUMF. H.R.932 was sponsored on February 9, 2023 by Barbara Lee, the lone vote against the 2001 AUMF. H.R.932 was co-sponsored by 70 Representatives including 27 Republicans. S.316 (118th), also known as A bill to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against Iraq, is the Senate version of H.R.932 that would have repealed the 2002 AUMF. S.316 was sponsored on February 9, 2023 by Virginia Senator Tim Kaine and Indiana Senator Todd Young. S.316 was co-sponsored by 46 Senators including 12 Republicans. S.316 advanced from the Senate by 66 votes to 30 on March 29, 2023. 18 Republican Senators voted in favor of Kaine's proposal while no Democratic Senators voted against it.