Gerson in his article divides occupation into three categories according to International Law: Invasion, Belligerent Occupation and Post Surrender Occupation and then he examines the status of lawful entry.
Invasion is when effective and continuing control over hold areas has not yet been established. Restrictions are imposed by International Law on the invader. Paragraph 4 in Article 2 of UN charter prohibits the threat or use of force during the disposition of territory. Also, invaders must avoid unnecessary civilian injuries in achieving immediate military objectives.
Belligerent Occupation is when effective military control over held areas has been achieved. In this case, Non Military resolutions end the war. Monitoring the population activity and maintaining cooperation with civil society help securing its forces. International Law forces the occupied and the occupying power to preserve the laws and institutions existing before the occupation pending a showing that such reform was either minor in character, necessitated by public order, security needs or humanitarian considerations.
Post Surrender Occupation is continued occupation of territory subsequent to unconditional surrender of the enemy party and its allies. International Law grants the post surrender occupant wide administrative latitude. After all, the enemy has been defeated and has little or no longer bargaining power to affect the management of the territory
The following section examines justifications for assumption of the status lawful entry:
Self Defense can be a lawful entry. Article 51 in UN Charter provides that “nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense IF an armed attack occurs against a ...
... middle of paper ...
...s on planning for Iraqi’s future.
Some Lessons from the British Experience:
Never assume that people liberated will be grateful because there country has been conquered even if a hated autocratic has been removed. Be careful what you ask for. US should consider the different types of ideologies in Iraq and US then choose either to bring democracy to Iraq or to maintain US strategic interests. Beware of unintended consequences for instance creating sectarian and ethnic separation education systems, remaking the military and the army and paying off debts that causes costs of reparations, prior debt and new debt. Never impose a system that cannot be protected or defended. For example, economic and political problems would appear due to the invasion that the US would not be able to protect the system and US supporters would be no longer interested in staying in Iraq.
The involvement of the US through Operation Desert Storm ensured that Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq would be limited to Iraq. It was also aimed at ensuring that the welfare of the Arab nations was being taken care of. This operation saw the release of over 400 000 military troops in Saudi Arabia. Through the United Nations Security Council, the US was able to seek support from other countries in order to enhance effective policy formulation to keep Saddam Hussein’s aggression at bay. ...
Foreign policy and Immigration since 1945”. Threatened Peoples, Threatened Borders: World Migration Policy. Eds. Michael Teitelbaum and Myron Weiner. New York: Columbia University, 1995. p.123-124.
In “Ethics and Intervention: The ‘Humanitarian Exception’ and the Problem of Abuse in the Case of Iraq, Alex Bellamy argues that war is only justified in exceptional cases where “supreme humanitarian intervention” is genuinely required (Bellamy, p. 137). Bellamy discusses the ethics of intervention and the decision of the US to invade Iraq. He provides the argument that international law does not provide moral reasoning on the issues of war. However, he acknowledges that it does provide an important foundation on the issue of legitimacy of war. He discusses two legal justifications for war, which include implied UN authorization and pre-emptive self-defense of that state. Neither of these is the case in Iraq, although the government may say
The United States of America asked Iraq several times to leave Kuwait, but this led to nowhere (1). There are reasons to which led to this dreadful action. The Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein said that the surplus production of the oil is one of the reasons that made me conquer Kuwait, which...
Zacher, Mark W. “The Territorial Integrity Norm: International Boundaries and the Use of Force.” International Organization. Vol. 55, No. 2 (Spring 2001), 215-250.
As states in the United Nations Charter, article 2(4) outlines the general prohibitions on the use of force. It provides that all member states shall refrain from the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. The charter additionally outlines exceptions to article 2(4): force used in self-defense the attack must be an armed attack; security council enforcement actions under chapter VII-The security council is authorized under article 39 to determine the existence of any...
War, in all its forms, is tragic. International law was created to establish some basis of rules to abide by—including war—and states have signed on to such a contract. The actions of states in this ever globalizing world are difficult to be controlled. The source of international law operates through the hands of the United Nations. The enforcement of the law occurs through reciprocity, collective action, and a display of international norms (Goldstein, p. 254). War in fact has been given a justification, though it is arguable whether or not the basis of the idea is correct. Wars can be just under certain conditions.
At the end of World War I, the British Empire took control of the land, and imposed a monarchy on the region. However, in 1932 the British mandate came to an end, and the Iraqi people came in control of their newly independent country. Led by a series of kings, the country remained sufficiently stable and thrived off of discovered oil in the country. However, due to increased political oppression, a group known as “Free Officers” overthrew the monarchy and instituted a republic government on the land. (Iraq Foreign Policy, Brittanica, 2010)
Ethnic cleansing is a 'phrase for an attempt to purge an area of an unwanted ethnic group. It can include deportation, intimidation, and acts of genocide or mass murder.'; (Encarta, 'Ethnic cleansing';). It occurs most frequently in third world countries. Whenever it arises, it is followed by a host of moral questions. Do we just stay out completely and allow the country to deal with its own problems? Or, if we decide to take action, do we merely send medical aid or help militarily? Should we send in the army? Or is an air war the only acceptable option? It all comes down to an ethical issue, with one group insisting that preventing the loss of lives is paramount. The other side states that ethnic cleansing is caused by a fundamental disagreement between two ethnic groups, so unless we allow the groups to resolve their own issues, they can never be content and productive.
Moreover, Jones argues that there should also be “non-military intervention strategies… military solutions should be a last resort” (Jones, 2006). While this argument is between what types of intervention to decide on, there is still the other argument about whether or not to intervene at all. Donnelly’s article highlights Robert Jackson’s opinion on the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. Jackson argues that “atrocities such as those in Bosnia and Kosovo are local tragedies rather than matters of international responsibility… international society has no right to come between a people and its government” (Donnelly, 2002). I cannot disagree with Jackson enough. When human rights are clearly being violated, then international society has the right to come between the people and their government. If the government no longer respects their people, then the international society no longer has to respect the “boundaries” that were stopping intervention in the first place. Unfortunately, this would clearly disrupt international order. Therefore, a feasible policy of intervention needs to be developed in order to account for most situations and not create another world
Under the Baathi regime, military, bureaucracy and security services were divided into several competing institutions which reinforced Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq. In the post war Iraq, the USA in collaboration with the Iraq National Congress and the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution started to make Iraq a democracy that is similar to the American political culture and values.
The abrupt end of decade long dominating regime in three weeks had created a political vacuum, that is evident in shifting coalitions and divisions among religious groups, ethnic groups, regional groups and even classes (Barnett et al. 2003, 25). US did not realize, moreover, the depth of the hostility between Kurds and Arabs, Sunnis and Shiites, and the members of different tribes and local religious groups. Furthermore, to deal with destruction in Iraq new plan was decided by the US. The plan was to pull out all troops and hand over the responsi...
Although, within the U.N. Charter of 1945, Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against ‘the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’ (U.N. Charter, art.2 para.4), it has been suggested by counter-restrictionist international lawyers, that humanitarian intervention does not fall under these criteria, making it legally justifiable under the U.N. Charter (e.g. Damrosch 1991:219 in Baylis and Smith 2001: 481). However, this viewpoint lacks credibility, as it is far from the general international consensus, and unlikely the initial intentions of the draftsmen of the charter. In more recent times, one can examine the emerging doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’(RtoP), which was adopted unanimously by the UN in 2005, as a far more persuasive example of modern legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. While not consolidated within international law, RtoP, which promotes humanitarian intervention where sovereign states fail in their own responsibility to protect their citizens, does use legal language and functions as a comprehensive international framework to prevent human rights
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is an emerging principle, developed after catastrophes such as the Rwandan genocide to ensure such a large-scale tragedy would never happen again. It presents the idea that sovereignty is not a right, and that states should allow international intervention during acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Under the R2P, the international community has the right to defend other nations from these tragedies; however, many nations will not be obliged to be bound by an agreement, due to opposing and conflicting views and objectives. This has been demonstrated in various instances when nations are in disagreement with the planned course of action and abstained as a result. The doctrine serves as a pathway for the world’s leading powers to invade another state’s sovereignty, which could divide the members of the Security Council. Furthermore, if enacted regularly, the R2P would cause more harm than good, leading to destruction and exploitation Due to this, not all of the international community are in disagreement and thereby not obliged to act. Many states will not consider acting when a tragedy occurs, due to distrust and ongoing suspicions with these plans. This ultimately devalues the authenticity and objective of the R2P. Firstly, my paper will outline the definitions of the R2P doctrine. Secondly, the effectiveness of the R2P and its relationship with different UN members, followed by case studies. Lastly, short analysis will conclude the paper.
Magno, A., (2001) Human Rights in Times of Conflict: Humanitarian Intervention . Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2 (5). [online] Available from: [Accessed 2 March 2011]