This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: 2008.01.15 Overview a) Sources - Natural Law v. Positive Law i) Natural Law (1) Main theorist was Grotius (2) Found (3) Reason ii) Positive Law (1) State-made (2) Agreed to through practice (custom or treaty) (3) Focused on sov'y and consent b) Subjects - What it means and who gets to be a state; sovereignty c) Enforcement i) Classical IL (1) Force was used at will and to protect "interests" (2) Basically no restrictions ii) Colonization Era (1) Terra Nullius (sp?) (a) Land not owned by a recognized states iii) 19th Century (1) Intervention (force) begins to be justified for humanitarian reasons (a) Usually just a façade for economic, political, or other reasons iv) Modern IL (1) Interwar Period (a) Limitations put on the use of force (b) Exceptions: self-defense (2) Post WWII (a) Limitations on force (b) Exceptions: (i) Self-defense 1. This has grown to include preemptive self-defense (ex: Israelis in conflict w/ Egypt) (ii) Security Council 1. 5 permanent members all have veto (US, Russia, UK, China, and France) 2. 15 other members elected to 2 yr terms 3. May authorize force a. Res. 678 was the first authorization of use of force since Korea b. Why? Cold War was going on and US or USSR would always use their veto 4. May also authorize economic sanctions (Art. 41) 2) Operation Iraqi Freedom a) Background on Iraq/Kuwait i) 1990 - Resolution 678: authorized use of force ii) 1991 - Resolution 686: cease-fire (1) Iraq must renounce annexation iii) 1991 - Resolution 687: basically says: we don’t trust you (1) Says they must destroy WMD (2) Sets up inspections b) Resolution 1441 (2002) i) Iraq remains in an ongoing breach of Res. 687 ii) Gave final opportunity to comply - 30 days iii) Unclear of what is to be done after 30 days (1) Much debate over this (2) Says UNSC must convene (3) Doesn't clarify whether force is authorized c) Why didn't US use self-defense argument? i) Could have been argued: (1) If you thought there were WMD and they were going to be used against US ii) Reasons why they didn't: (1) US doesn't want to broaden the doctrine of preemptive self-defense (2) Self-defense has to be proportional d) Was this use of force illegal? i) Was 678 a trigger for the use of force? (1) 678 was specifically authorizing use of force to remove Iraq from Kuwait (2) However, 687 left the door open (3) Precedent: Pres. Clinton used 687 to justify bombing Iraq (4) Does it make sense that anyone for any reason can use force against Iraq until the UNSC says in a resolution that authorization can no longer be used?...
View Full Document