Originally posted by GScholz
In 1991 the US was not at war with Iraq, nor was Norway or any of the other forces there. We were all part of a UN coalition. The UN made the ceasefire agreement with Iraq, the UN and Iraq alone can decide to invalidate it and/or take actions as a consequence.
I would direct you toward resolution 678 which “authorizes Member States” to “use all necessary means to uphold and implement” the resolution demanding Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait and “all subsequent relevant resolutions” and to “restore international peace and security in the area.”
Resolution 1441 lists 678 as a relevant resolution, and no other relevent resolutions revoke the authorization made in 678. A coalition of Member States did in fact use authorized force to implement relevant SC resolutions.
No war is legal without a UN mandate unless it is conducted in self-defence, which is why WMD is such an important issue. Unless the US can prove that Iraq was a genuine threat and that an attack was imminent the US will to the rest of the world be international criminals, liars, breakers of treaties, warmongerers and untrustworthy. You signed the UN Charter, as did most other nations in good faith.
Furthermore, according to Professor Michael Glennon, of Tufts University, there have been about 100 cases of the use of force in international affairs since the UN charter was established which did not recieve authorization by the Security Counsel.
Is it now your assertion that those cases were illegal? If it is, Article 39 puts the responsibility of determining of, and acting upon, on the Security Counsel.
How do you explain the NATO (including French) attack on Yugoslavia without Security Council approval?
How is it that since 1945 the Security Council has authorised force in so few cases, or exorcized their discretion outlined in Articles 39 through 41?
You can accuse the Security Council of inaction, but it is by Charter the burden of the Security Council to make those determinations and take nessecery action. The SC did not close out its authorization that applied to subsequent resolutions. Then again the SC did not give specific authorization. Then again the SC did not specifically act to obstruct the coilition. You are in effect arguing that a person in your interpretation is breaking the law and therefore a criminal, and ignoring the judges ruling that a crime was not committed.
In this case the Security Counsel acted with Resolution 1483 recognizing the allied forces in Iraq as legal "occupying forces under unified command"
