 |
|
RE: The word "illegal" suggests law - wiki rescue
Posted on: November 21, 2017 at 10:17:07 CT
raskolnikov MU
Posts:
187966
Member For:
24.74 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
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.[1][2]
Political leaders of the US and UK have claimed that the war was legal;[citation needed] however, legal experts, including John Chilcot, who, acting as chairman for the British public inquiry into Iraq, also known as the Iraq Inquiry, led an investigation with hearings from 24 November 2009 to 2 February 2011, concluded that the process of identifying the legal basis for the invasion of Iraq was unsatisfactory and that the actions of the US and the UK have undermined the authority of the United Nations. International leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin[3][4] and Deputy Prime Minister to Tony Blair John Prescott,[5] have also argued that the invasion of Iraq lacked legality as examples.
"The use of force abroad, according to existing international laws, can only be sanctioned by the United Nations. This is the international law. Everything that is done without the UN Security Council's sanction cannot be recognised as fair or justified" - Quote, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Televised conference before James bakers meeting. 19/12/20-3[6][3]
US and UK officials have argued that existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the 1991 Gulf War and the subsequent ceasefire (660, 678), and to later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs (1441), had already authorized the invasion.[7] Critics of the invasion have challenged both of these assertions, arguing that an additional Security Council resolution, which the US and UK failed to obtain, would have been necessary to specifically authorize the invasion.[1][8][9]
Political leaders of the US and UK have claimed that the war was legal;[citation needed] however, legal experts, including John Chilcot, who, acting as chairman for the British public inquiry into Iraq, also known as the Iraq Inquiry, led an investigation with hearings from 24 November 2009 to 2 February 2011, concluded that the process of identifying the legal basis for the invasion of Iraq was unsatisfactory and that the actions of the US and the UK have undermined the authority of the United Nations. International leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin[3][4] and Deputy Prime Minister to Tony Blair John Prescott,[5] have also argued that the invasion of Iraq lacked legality as examples.
"The use of force abroad, according to existing international laws, can only be sanctioned by the United Nations. This is the international law. Everything that is done without the UN Security Council's sanction cannot be recognised as fair or justified" - Quote, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Televised conference before James bakers meeting. 19/12/20-3[6][3]
US and UK officials have argued that existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the 1991 Gulf War and the subsequent ceasefire (660, 678), and to later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs (1441), had already authorized the invasion.[7] Critics of the invasion have challenged both of these assertions, arguing that an additional Security Council resolution, which the US and UK failed to obtain, would have been necessary to specifically authorize the invasion.[1][8][9]
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
RE: The word "illegal" suggests law - wiki rescue - raskolnikov MU - 11/21 10:17:07