The Iarq War

The Iraq War: legality and legitimacy

On March 18th, 2003, the U.S., assisted by what was named a “coalition of the willing”, which was originally comprised of about 30 nations, some of which even offered military troops in support of the U.S., namely the U.K., Denmark, Poland, and Australia, led the invasion of Iraq, the overthrow of the Iraqi government present at the time, and the capture and execution of Iraqi head of government Saddam Hussein: actions which have fueled much debate and controversy within the international community concerning the legality and legitimacy of the Iraq War. The U.S. claimed that the invasion of Iraq was legal under international law, given that Iraq had remained in breach of its obligations under “relevant Security Council resolutions”: actions which terminated the formal cease-fire established by Security Council resolution (SCR) 687, thereby reviving the authority of SCR 678, constituting the right of member states to use “all necessary means” against Iraq for the purposes of upholding and implementing SCR 660 (1190) and other relevant resolutions of the security council, and restoring peace and security in the region ( Hmoud; UN SCR 678(2)). Furthermore, the second justification provided by the U.S. for the invasion of Iraq was that the U.S. was acting under its “inherent right” to self defense, a right that is explicitly stated in chapter VII, article 51 of the UN charter and also enforced by the extension of this treaty into customary international law. This attempted justification for the Iraq war, as well as the argument that the use of force was legalized by the breaching of SCR 687, have both, been challenged by scholars of international law. Through a close analysis of the UN charter, relevant resolutions of the Security Council, and evidence surrounding the Iraq war, one may assert