Iraq Resolution

Last updated
President George W. Bush, surrounded by leaders of the House and Senate, announces the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, October 2, 2002. Bush auth jbc.jpg
President George W. Bush, surrounded by leaders of the House and Senate, announces the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, October 2, 2002.

The Iraq Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, [1] Pub.L.   107–243 , 116  Stat.   1498 , enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq. [2]

An Act of Congress is a statute enacted by the United States Congress. It can either be a Public Law, relating to the general public, or a Private Law, relating to specific institutions or individuals.

<i>United States Statutes at Large</i>

The United States Statutes at Large, commonly referred to as the Statutes at Large and abbreviated Stat., are an official record of Acts of Congress and concurrent resolutions passed by the United States Congress. Each act and resolution of Congress is originally published as a slip law, which is classified as either public law or private law (Pvt.L.), and designated and numbered accordingly. At the end of a Congressional session, the statutes enacted during that session are compiled into bound books, known as "session law" publications. The session law publication for U.S. Federal statutes is called the United States Statutes at Large. In that publication, the public laws and private laws are numbered and organized in chronological order. U.S. Federal statutes are published in a three-part process, consisting of slip laws, session laws, and codification.

In the United States Congress, a joint resolution is a legislative measure that requires passage by the Senate and the House of Representatives and is presented to the president for his or her approval or disapproval. Generally, there is no legal difference between a joint resolution and a bill. Both must be passed, in exactly the same form, by both chambers of Congress, and signed by the President to become a law. Only joint resolutions may be used to propose amendments to the United States Constitution and these do not require the approval of the President. Laws enacted by virtue of a joint resolution are not distinguished from laws enacted by a bill, except that they are designated as resolutions as opposed to Acts of Congress.

Contents

Contents

The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq: [3] [4]

Baathist Iraq covers the history of the Republic of Iraq from 1968 to 2003

Ba'athist Iraq, formally the Iraqi Republic, covers the history of Iraq between 1968 and 2003, during the period of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party's rule. This period began with high economic growth and soaring prosperity, but ended with Iraq facing social, political, and economic stagnation. The average annual income decreased because of several external factors, and several internal policies of the government.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 United Nations Security Council resolution

United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, adopted on 3 April 1991, after reaffirming resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, 678 and 686 (1991), the Council set the terms, in a comprehensive resolution, with which Iraq was to comply after losing the Gulf War. Resolution 687 was passed by 12 votes to one against (Cuba) with two abstentions from Ecuador and Yemen after a very extended meeting. Iraq accepted the provisions of the resolution on 6 April 1991.

United Nations Special Commission Wikimedia list article

United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) was an inspection regime created by the United Nations to ensure Iraq's compliance with policies concerning Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction after the Gulf War. Between 1991 and 1997 its director was Rolf Ekéus; from 1997 to 1999 its director was Richard Butler.

Persian Gulf An arm of the Indian Ocean in western Asia

The Persian Gulf is a mediterranean sea in Western Asia. The body of water is an extension of the Indian Ocean through the Strait of Hormuz and lies between Iran to the northeast and the Arabian Peninsula to the southwest. The Shatt al-Arab river delta forms the northwest shoreline.

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."

George W. Bush 43rd president of the United States

George Walker Bush is an American politician and businessman who served as the 43rd president of the United States from 2001 to 2009. He had previously served as the 46th governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000.

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."

National security defense and maintenance of a state through use of all powers at the states disposal

National security refers to the security of a nation state, including its citizens, economy, and institutions, and is regarded as a duty of government.

Passage

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.

Passage of the full resolution

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 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

United States House of Representatives

PartyAyesNaysNot
Voting
Republican21562
Democratic821261
Independent010
TOTALS2971333
  • 215 (96.4%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted for the resolution.
  • 82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
  • 6 (<2.7%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
  • 126 (~60.3%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
  • The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)

United States Senate

PartyYeasNays
Republican481
Democratic2921
Independent01
TOTALS7723
  • 29 (58%) of 50 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution were:

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).

  • 21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution. Those voting against the resolution were:

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).

  • 1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
  • The only independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)
Final Congressional vote by chamber and party, October 2002 H.J.Res. 114 Iraq Resolution Votes October 2002.png
Final Congressional vote by chamber and party, October 2002

Amendments offered to the House Resolution

The Lee Amendment

Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to have the United States work through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction, through mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, enquiry, mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means.
Sponsored by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA). [11]
Failed by the Ayes and Nays: 72 - 355 [12]

The Spratt Amendment

Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces to support any new U.N. Security Council resolution that mandated the elimination, by force if necessary, of all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, long-range ballistic missiles, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. Requested that the President should seek authorization from Congress to use the armed forces of the U.S. in the absence of a U.N. Security Council resolution sufficient to eliminate, by force if necessary, all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, long-range ballistic missiles, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. Provided expedited consideration for authorization in the latter case.
Sponsored by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC-5). [13]
Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 155 - 270 [14]

The House Rules Amendment

An amendment considered as adopted pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 574 [15]
Sponsored by House Rules. [16]
Resolution (H.RES.574) agreed to by voice vote [17]

Amendments offered to the Senate Resolution

The Byrd Amendments

To provide statutory construction that constitutional authorities remain unaffected and that no additional grant of authority is made to the President not directly related to the existing threat posed by Iraq.
Sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV). [18]
Amendment SA 4868 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 14 - 86 [19]
To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension.
Sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV). [20]
Amendment SA 4869 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 31 - 66 [21]

The Levin Amendment

To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes.
Sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). [22]
Amendment SA 4862 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 24 - 75 [23]

The Durbin Amendment

To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
Sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). [24]
Amendment SA 4865 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 30 - 70 [25]

International law

There have been no findings by any legal tribunal with both legal authority and legal jurisdiction that any laws were violated. There are only two legal tribunals with both authority and jurisdiction to make such a finding: (1) The US federal courts and (2) the United Nations. Advisory opinions are prohibited in US Courts and are also prohibited by the UN Charter unless the security council authorizes them. There are no relevant advisory opinions or legal finding regarding the legality. The United Nations security council has made no findings on the issues.

International law: right of pre-emptive self defense

There is no requirement in international law that the United States (or any nation) seek permission to initiate any war of self-defense. [26] "The United States government has argued, wholly apart from Resolution 1441, that it has a right of pre-emptive self-defense to protect itself from terrorism fomented by Iraq. [27] Although this position has been intensively criticized, without any legal finding for support, claims for legality or illegality are merely debates. To prove illegality it would first be necessary to prove that the US did not meet the conditions of necessity and proportionality and that the right of pre-emptive defense did not apply. [28] In September 2004, Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, reiterated his opinion “that it was not in conformity with the UN Charter" and "it was illegal". [29]

U.S. law

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. [30]

Similar efforts to secure judicial review of the invasion's legality have been dismissed on a variety of justiciability grounds.

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). [31] 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 [32] 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. [33] This is the same argument that was used for Operation Desert Fox in 1998. [34] 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". [35]

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. [36] In addition, other nations have stated that a second resolution was required to initiate hostilities. [37] Some have asserted that the war was an illegal war of aggression, and Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary-General, expressed the belief that the war in Iraq was an "illegal act that contravened the U.N. charter." [38]

See also

Related Research Articles

Iraq disarmament crisis

The Iraq disarmament crisis was claimed as one of primary issues that led to the multinational invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003. Since the 1980s, Iraq was widely assumed to have been producing and extensively running the programs of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. During the heights of Iran–Iraq War, Iraq had used its offensive chemical program against Iran and Kurdish civilians, also in the 1980s. With the French and Soviet assistance given to Iraqi nuclear program, its primary facility was secretly destroyed by Israel in 1981.

United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission organization established by the United Nations 1999-2007

The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) was created through the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 1284 of 17 December 1999 and its mission lasted until June 2007.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 United Nations Security Council resolution

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 what was subsequently termed the US invasion of Iraq.

United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War

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 insisted it possessed. The 2003 invasion of Iraq began a few days later.

War Powers Resolution 1973 U.S. federal law limiting the power of the president to declare war

The War Powers Resolution is a federal law intended to check the 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 Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send 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."

United States and the United Nations

The United States of America is a charter member of the United Nations and one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Carl Levin United States Senator from Michigan

Carl Milton Levin is an American attorney and retired politician who served as a United States Senator from Michigan from 1979 to 2015. He was the chair of the Senate Committee on Armed Services and is a member of the Democratic Party.

Declaration of war by the United States

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. The document Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications gives an extensive listing and summary of statutes which are automatically engaged upon the US declaring war.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 United Nations Security Council resolution

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.

Iraq Liberation Act

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq ..." It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

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.

Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq

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 British 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), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 and any "associated forces". 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 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001. 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.

Legality of the Iraq War

The legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Poland and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated in September 2004 that: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal", explicitly declaring that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

United States Senate career of Hillary Clinton

Hillary Rodham Clinton served as a United States Senator from New York from January 3, 2001 to January 21, 2009. She won the United States Senate election in New York, 2000 and the United States Senate election in New York, 2006. Clinton resigned from the Senate on January 21, 2009 to become United States Secretary of State for the Obama Administration.

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.

References

  1. ↑ Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (pdf)
  2. ↑ "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" (Press release). The Office of the President of the United States. Archived from the original on November 2, 2002.
  3. 1 2 "President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution" (Press release). The White House. 2002-10-02.
  4. ↑ "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" (Press release). The White House. 2002-10-02.
  5. ↑ "President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly" (Press release). The White House. 2002-09-12.
  6. ↑ "Remarks by the President after Meeting with Congressional Leaders" (Press release). The White House. 2002-09-18.
  7. ↑ Legislation related to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, Congressional Record, Library of Congress.
  8. ↑ Major Congressional Actions of H.J.Res. 114, Congressional Record, Library of Congress
  9. ↑ "107th Congress-2nd Session 455th Roll Call Vote of by members of the House of Representatives".
  10. ↑ "U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session". www.senate.gov.
  11. ↑ H.AMDT.608 - Amendment in the nature of a substitute of H.J.RES.114, 107th Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, Library of Congress, 2002-10-10
  12. ↑ On Agreeing to the Lee of California Substitute Amendment, 107th Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, Clerk of the House, 2002-10-10
  13. ↑ H.AMDT.609 - Amendment in the nature of a substitute of H.J.RES.114, 107th Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, Library of Congress, 2002-10-10
  14. ↑ On Agreeing to the Spratt of South Carolina Substitute Amendment, 107th Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, Clerk of the House, 2002-10-10
  15. ↑ H.RES.574 - Providing for the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J.RES.114), 107th Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, Library of Congress, 2002-10-08
  16. ↑ H.AMDT.610 - Amendment considered as adopted pursuant to the provisions of H.Res.574, 107th Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, Library of Congress, 2002-10-10
  17. ↑ On Agreeing to Resolve H.RES.574, 107th Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, Library of Congress, 2002-10-08
  18. ↑ S.AMDT.4868 - Providing for Statuary Construction in the Consideration of the Joint Resolution (S.J.RES.45), 107th Congress, U.S. Senate, Library of Congress, 2002-10-10
  19. ↑ On Agreeing to the Amendment (Byrd Amdt. No. 4868), 107th Congress, U.S. Senate, Library of Congress, 2002-10-10
  20. ↑ S.AMDT.4869 - Providing for Congressional Construction in the Consideration of the Joint Resolution (S.J.RES.45), 107th Congress, U.S. Senate, Library of Congress, 2002-10-10
  21. ↑ On Agreeing to the Amendment (Byrd Amdt. No. 4869), 107th Congress, U.S. Senate, Library of Congress, 2002-10-10
  22. ↑ S.AMDT.4862 - Providing for Congressional Construction in the Consideration of the Joint Resolution (S.J.RES.45), 107th Congress, U.S. Senate, Library of Congress, 2002-10-10
  23. ↑ On Agreeing to the Amendment (Levin Amdt. No. 4862), 107th Congress, U.S. Senate, Library of Congress, 2002-10-10
  24. ↑ S.AMDT.4865 - Providing for Congressional Amendment in the Consideration of the Joint Resolution (S.J.RES.45), 107th Congress, U.S. Senate, Library of Congress, 2002-10-10
  25. ↑ On Agreeing to the Amendment (Byrd Amdt. No. 4865), 107th Congress, U.S. Senate, Library of Congress, 2002-10-10
  26. ↑ Case of the S.S. "Lotus" (France v. Turkey), PCIJ Series A, No. 10, at 18 (1927). "The first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that - failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary - it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State.
  27. ↑ American Society of International Law: Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq's Final Opportunity to Comply with Disarmament Obligations November, 2002. http://www.asil.org/insigh92.cfm Retrieved 12/28/2011.
  28. ↑ American Society of International Law. June 2002. Frederic L. Kirgis. Pre-emptive Action to Forestall Terrorism. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2010-07-07. Retrieved 2010-08-17.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link) Accessed 12/28/2011. "The right of self-defense is such a permissive rule, if the conditions of necessity and proportionality are met."
  29. ↑ "Iraq war illegal, says Annan". 16 September 2004 – via news.bbc.co.uk.
  30. ↑ Doe v. Bush Opinion by Judge Lynch 3/13/2003 Archived 2007-08-09 at the Wayback Machine Pages 3,4,23,25,26. Retrieved 8/7/2007.
  31. ↑ World Press: "The United Nations, International Law, and the War in Iraq" Retrieved 9/5/2007. "Resolution 1441 ultimately passed—by a vote of 15-0—because its ambiguous wording was able to placate all parties. <...> Resolution 1441 is ambiguous in two important ways. The first deals with who can determine the existence of a material breach. The second concerns whether another resolution, explicitly authorizing force, is needed before military action against Iraq may be taken."
  32. ↑ UN Charter Article 39 http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter5.shtml Accessed 12/28/2011.
  33. ↑ ASIL: Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq's Final Opportunity to Comply with Disarmament Obligations November, 2002. Retrieved 9/5/2007. "The language of 'material breach' in Resolution 1441 is keyed to Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is the authoritative statement of international law regarding material breaches of treaties. Under Article 60 of the Vienna Convention, a material breach is an unjustified repudiation of a treaty or the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of a treaty. Article 60 provides that a party specially affected by a material breach of a multilateral treaty may invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting state. <...> Security Council Resolution 687, adopted at the end of the Gulf War, includes a provision declaring a formal cease-fire between Iraq, Kuwait and the member states (such as the United States) cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with Resolution 678 (1990). Resolution 678 authorized member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area, and thus provided the basis under international law for the allies' military action in the Gulf War. The determination in Resolution 1441 that Iraq is already in material breach of its obligations under Resolution 687 provides a basis for the decision in paragraph 4 (above) of Resolution 1441 that any further lack of cooperation by Iraq will be a further material breach. If Iraq, having confirmed its intention to comply with Resolution 1441, then fails to cooperate fully with the inspectors, it would open the way to an argument by any specially affected state that it could suspend the operation of the cease-fire provision in Resolution 687 and rely again on Resolution 678."
  34. ↑ World Press: "The United Nations, International Law, and the War in Iraq" Retrieved 9/5/2007. "[On Dec. 16, 1998], U.S. and British warplanes launched air strikes against Iraq after learning that Iraq was continuing to impede the work of UNSCOM, the weapons inspectors sent to Iraq at the close of the Gulf War, and thus was not in compliance with Resolution 687. When the Security Council met that night to discuss whether individual member states could resort to force without renewed Security Council consent, it was clear that the Security Council members did not all agree on the legality of the U.S. and British resort to force. According to the press release from that meeting, the U.S. representative claimed his country's actions were authorized by previous council resolutions (as many in the Bush administration are arguing again today). The British delegate similarly argued that because Iraq had not complied with the terms of Resolution 687, military force was justified."
  35. ↑ World Press: "The United Nations, International Law, and the War in Iraq" Retrieved 9/5/2007. "At that time, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte said: 'This resolution contains no 'hidden triggers' and no 'automaticity' with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a Member State, the matter will return to the council for discussion….[But] if the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce the relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.' The British ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, agreed."
  36. ↑ US not allowed to speak for the entire council
  37. ↑ ASIL: Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq's Final Opportunity to Comply with Disarmament Obligations November, 2002. Retrieved 9/5/2007. "[T]he representative of Mexico (a current member of the Security Council) said after the vote on Resolution 1441 that the use of force is only valid as a last resort and with prior, explicit authorization from the Council. Mexico does not stand alone in taking that position. <...> It would be argued that, in light of the emphasis in the Charter on peaceful dispute settlement, Resolution 678 could not be used as an authorization for the use of force after twelve years of cease fire, unless the Security Council says so."
  38. ↑ Iraq war illegal, says Annan BBC News, September 16, 2004
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.