Legality of the Iraq War#United States

File:UStanks baghdad 2003.JPEG, Iraq.]]

A dispute exists over the legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The debate centers around the question whether the invasion was an unprovoked assault on an independent country that may have breached international law, or if the United Nations Security Council authorized the invasion (whether the conditions set in place after the Gulf War allowed the resumption if Iraq did not uphold to the Security Council resolutions).{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/letters/story/0,3604,909275,00.html |title=War would be illegal |work=The Guardian|date=7 March 2003|location=London}} Those arguing for its legitimacy often point to Congressional Joint Resolution 114 and UN Security Council resolutions, such as Resolution 1441 and Resolution 678."International Law and the War in Iraq," John Yoo. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 97, No. 3 (Jul., 2003), pp. 563-576 {{doi|10.2307/3109841}}."Future Implications of the Iraq Conflict." W.H. Taft and T’F. Buchwald. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 97, No. 3 (Jul., 2003), pp. 553-563 {{doi|10.2307/3109841}}, Those arguing against its legitimacy also cite some of the same sources, stating they do not actually permit war but instead lay out conditions that must be met before war can be declared. Furthermore, the Security Council may only authorise the use of force against an "aggressor"{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_functions.html |title=Functions and Powers |publisher=United Nations |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030402031311/http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_functions.html |archive-date=2 April 2003 }} in the interests of preserving peace, whereas the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not provoked by any aggressive military action.

There are ongoing debates regarding whether the invasion was launched with the explicit authorization of the United Nations Security Council. The Government of the United States asserts that the invasion was explicitly authorized by Security Council Resolution 678 and thus complies with international law.{{cite journal|author=CRS Issue Brief for Congress|date=February 2002|title=Iraq-U.S. Confrontation|journal=Alfred B. Prados and Kenneth Katzman|issue=IB94049|url=https://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/9043.pdf|access-date=2009-04-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090409073529/http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/9043.pdf|archive-date=2009-04-09|url-status=live}} The Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes UN Member States to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area",{{cite press release|publisher=Department of State|date=2003-03-20|title=Saddam Hussein's Defiance of UNSCRs|url=http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2003/18850.htm|access-date=2009-04-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090219124501/http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2003/18850.htm|archive-date=2009-02-19|url-status=live}} however there exist different interpretations of its meaning. The only legal jurisdiction to find "aggression" or to find the invasion illegal rests with the Security Council under United Nations Charter Articles 39–42. The Security Council met in 2003 for two days, reviewed the legal claims involved, and elected to be "seized of the matter".Patrick McLaren, Settling the Score with Saddam: Resolution 1441 and Parallel Justifications for the Use of Force against Iraq (2003) 13 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 233 (Lexis)Bill Campbell and Chris Moraitis, 'Memorandum of Advice to the Commonwealth Government on the Use of Force against Iraq' (2003) 4 Melbourne Journal of International Law 178. The Security Council has not reviewed these issues since 2003. The public debate, however, continues. Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed his opinion that the invasion of Iraq was "not in conformity with the UN charter [...] from the charter point of view, [the invasion] was illegal".{{cite news |author-link=Owen Bennett-Jones |last=Bennett-Jones |first=Owen |date=2004-09-16 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661640.stm |title=Excerpts: Annan interview |publisher=BBC |access-date=2009-04-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090326195308/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661640.stm |archive-date=2009-03-26 |url-status=live }}

While in power, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980 and began the Iran–Iraq War, which lasted until 1988.{{cite web |publisher=United Nations |title=خطای نابهنگام |date=12 September 1991 |access-date=2012-02-05 |page=[http://www.irna.com/occasion/defence/english/un/page1.pdf 1], [http://www.irna.com/occasion/defence/english/un/page2.pdf 2], [http://www.irna.com/occasion/defence/english/un/page3.pdf 3] |language=fa|url=http://www.irna.com/occasion/defence/english/un/page1.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120205102912/http://www.irna.com/occasion/defence/english/un/page1.pdf |archive-date=5 February 2012 }} Iraq's invasion was backed by the United States who funneled over $5 billion to support Saddam's party and sold Iraq hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment. During the war, Hussein used chemical weapons on at least 10 occasions, including attacks against civilians.{{cite press release|publisher=The White House|date=2002-09-12|title=Saddam Hussein's Development of Weapons of Mass Destruction|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect3.html|access-date=2017-09-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180922202027/https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect3.html|archive-date=2018-09-22|url-status=live}} In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait and began the Persian Gulf War. After the ceasefire agreement was signed between Saddam and the UN in 1991, which suspended the hostilities of the Gulf War, Iraq repeatedly violated 16 different UNSC resolutions from 1990 to 2002.{{cite press release|publisher=The White House|date=2002-09-12|title=Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html|access-date=2017-09-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170711150828/https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html|archive-date=2017-07-11|url-status=live}} The Iraq Survey Group interviewed regime officials who stated Hussein kept weapon scientists employed and planned to revive Iraq's WMD program after the inspections were lifted, including nuclear weapons.{{cite web |url=http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/duelfer1_b.pdf |title=Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD: Volume 1; Regime Strategic Intent Page 1, "Key Findings" |access-date=2007-08-31 |quote=He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. … Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070713075625/http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/duelfer1_b.pdf |archive-date=2007-07-13 |url-status=live }} Under UN Resolution 1441, he was given a "final opportunity" to comply, and he again violated the resolution by submitting a false report to UNMOVIC inspectors and continually preventing them from inspecting Iraq's WMD sites.{{cite web |url=https://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/BlixSC19dec.htm |title=Hans Blix Security Council Briefing Notes |date=2002-12-19 |access-date=9 July 2007 |quote=During the period 1991–1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated. … The overall impression is that not much new significant information has been provided in the part of Iraq's Declaration, which relates to proscribed weapons programmes, nor has much new supporting documentation or other evidence been submitted. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080126114111/http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/BlixSC19dec.htm |archive-date=26 January 2008 |url-status=live |df=dmy-all }}{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/14/iraq.unitednations1 |title=Hans Blix's briefing to the security council |date=14 February 2003 |work=Guardian |access-date=21 July 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130826223940/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/14/iraq.unitednations1 |archive-date=26 August 2013 |url-status=live |df=dmy-all }}

During the Gulf War, Iraq took foreign civilians hostage on an unprecedented scale.{{cite web |url=http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_90/sponsored.html |title=Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism |publisher=Federation of American Scientists |year=1990 |access-date=9 July 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171011223622/https://fas.org/irp/threat/terror_90/sponsored.html |archive-date=11 October 2017 |url-status=live |df=dmy-all }} Hussein attempted to use terrorism against the United States during the Gulf War and against former President George H.W. Bush in Kuwait in 1993 for leading the Gulf War against him.{{cite web|url=https://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/980302/archive_003360.htm |title=Tracking Saddam's Network |work=U.S. News & World Report |date=1998-02-22 |access-date=9 July 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929134126/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/980302/archive_003360.htm |archive-date=29 September 2007 }} He had a long history of supporting fighters in Palestine by giving money to families of suicide bombers{{cite web |url=http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/html/final/eng/bu/iraq/iraq_f_a.htm |title=Iraqi Support for and Encouragement of Palestinian Terrorism (Part 1) |date=August 2002 |access-date=9 July 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927033655/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/html/final/eng/bu/iraq/iraq_f_a.htm |archive-date=27 September 2007 }} and gave refuge to other fighting groups against neighboring states in the region.{{cite press release|publisher=The White House|date=2002-09-12|title=Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html|access-date=2017-09-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180309223506/https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html|archive-date=2018-03-09|url-status=live}}

In 2000, two human rights groups, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues and the Coalition for Justice in Iraq, released a joint report documenting the indoctrination of children into a fighting force. These children as young as five were recruited into the Ashbal Saddam or Saddam's Cubs. The children would be separated from their parents and undergo military training. Parents objecting to this recruitment would be executed and children jailed if they failed to comply. These jails were later noted by Scott Ritter in an interview with Time magazine.{{cite news |url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html |title=Time Magazine: Scott Ritter in his Own Words |access-date=9 August 2007 |first=Massimo |last=Calabresi |date=14 September 2002 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060612220940/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html |archive-date=12 June 2006 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all }}

Vice President Cheney stated in 2006 that the U.S. would still have invaded Iraq even if intelligence had shown that there were no weapons of mass destruction. He said Hussein was still dangerous because of his history of using WMD, and taking him out of power "was the right thing to do".{{cite web|url=http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14767199|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130424111639/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14767199/|url-status=dead|archive-date=24 April 2013|title=Cheney: WMD or not, Iraq invasion was correct|date=10 September 2006 |access-date=2007-08-31|quote=He’d done it before,' Cheney said. 'He had produced chemical weapons before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a robust nuclear program in ’91.' The U.S. invasion 'was the right thing to do, and if we had to do it again, we would do exactly the same thing,' he said.|publisher=NBC News}}

According to Donald Rumsfeld, Saddam Hussein was giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers who were aggressive toward Israel.{{Cite web |url=http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/j6f55l/donald-rumsfeld-pt--1 |title=Donald Rumsfeld Pt. 1 - the Daily Show - Video Clip |access-date=2014-07-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714153309/http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/j6f55l/donald-rumsfeld-pt--1 |archive-date=2014-07-14 |url-status=dead }}

{{Further|Iraq and weapons of mass destruction}}

File:Colin Powell anthrax vial. 5 Feb 2003 at the UN.jpg holding a model vial of anthrax while giving a presentation to the United Nations Security Council]]

In the past, Iraq had been supplied with chemical weapons and the technology to develop them by Germany, France, United States and the United Kingdom.{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/06/uk.iraq2|author=David Leigh|title=The strange case of Falluja 2|date=2003-03-06|work=The Guardian|access-date=2008-09-20|location=London|quote=The plant was sold and installed by a British company in Hounslow, Uhde Ltd.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130826233604/http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/06/uk.iraq2|archive-date=2013-08-26|url-status=live}} Saddam used these weapons against Iranian forces in the Iran–Iraq War, and against Kurdish civilians in the Iraqi town of Halabja. In 1990 during the Gulf War Saddam had the opportunity to use these weapons, but chose not to. One of the noted reasons is the Iraqi forces' lack of up to date equipment to protect themselves from the effects, as well as the speed with which the US forces traversed the open desert.{{cite web|url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/cw-non-use.htm|title=Gulf War Non-Use of Chemical Weapons|publisher=GlobalSecurity.org|access-date=2006-02-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060227211509/http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/cw-non-use.htm|archive-date=2006-02-27|url-status=live}} From 1991 to 1998 UNSCOM inspected Iraq and worked to locate and destroy WMD stockpiles. The team was replaced in 1999 with the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission, UNMOVIC.

In 2002, Scott Ritter, a former UNSCOM weapons inspector, heavily criticized the Bush administration and the news media for relying on the testimony of alleged Iraqi nuclear scientist and defector Khidir Hamza as a rationale for invading Iraq.

{{blockquote|

We seized the entire records of the Iraqi Nuclear program, especially the administrative records. We got a name of everybody, where they worked, what they did, and the top of the list, Saddam's "Bombmaker" [Which was the title of Hamza's book, and earned the nickname afterwards] was a man named Jafar Dhia Jafar, not Khidir Hamza, and if you go down the list of the senior administrative personnel you will not find Hamza's name in there. In fact, we didn't find his name at all, because in 1990 he didn't work for the Iraqi Nuclear Program. He had no knowledge of it because he worked as a kickback specialist for Hussein Kamel in the Presidential Palace.

He goes into northern Iraq and meets up with Ahmad Chalabi. He walks in and says, "I'm Saddam's 'Bombmaker'." So they call the CIA and they say, "we know who you are, you're not Saddam's 'Bombmaker', go sell your story to someone else." And he was released, he was rejected by all intelligence services at the time, he's a fraud.

And here we are, someone who the CIA knows is a fraud, the US Government knows is a fraud, is allowed to sit in front of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and give testimony as an expert witness. I got a problem with that, I got a problem with the American media, and I've told them over and over and over again that this man is a documentable fraud, a fake, and yet they allow him to go on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and testify as if he actually knows what he is talking about.{{cite news |url=http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/ritter.html |title=The Iraqi Threat: How Real Is It? |access-date=2011-01-06 |date=October 2002 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511091228/http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/ritter.html |archive-date=2011-05-11 |url-status=live }}}}

No militarily significant WMDs have been found in Iraq since the invasion, although several degraded chemical munitions dating to before 1991 have been. On 21 June 2006, a report was released through the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, stating that since 2003, approximately 500 degraded chemical munitions have been discovered dating from before 1991 in Iraq, and "likely more will be recovered".{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2006/06/22/report-hundreds-wmds-iraq/ |title=Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq |date=21 June 2006 |publisher=Fox News |access-date=2006-04-29 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090122211324/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2006/06/22/report-hundreds-wmds-iraq/ |archive-date=22 January 2009 }} The weapons are filled "most likely" with Sarin and Mustard Gas.{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf|author=House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence|title=De-classified Report|date=21 June 2006|publisher=Fox News|access-date=2006-04-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060623135015/http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf|archive-date=23 June 2006|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}} However, the U.S. Department of Defense states that these weapons were not in usable condition, and that "these are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war".

In January 2006, The New York Times reported that, "A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was 'unlikely'."{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/politics/18niger.html|work=New York Times|date=18 January 2006|title=2002 Memo Doubted Uranium Sale Claim|first=Eric|last=Lichtblau|access-date=22 February 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150829200911/http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/politics/18niger.html|archive-date=29 August 2015|url-status=live|df=dmy-all}} The Iraqi government denied the existence of any such facilities or capabilities and called the reports lies and fabrications, which was backed by the post-war prima facie case that no WMDs were evident or found.

File:Bush auth jbc.jpg, October 2, 2002.]]

Former CIA officials have stated that the White House knew before the invasion that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, but had decided to attack Iraq and continue to use the WMD story as a false pretext for launching the war.{{cite news|url=https://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/white-house-knew-there-were-no-wmd-cia/2006/04/22/1145344306427.html|title=White House knew there were no WMD: CIA|work=The Sydney Morning Herald|date=22 April 2006|access-date=29 October 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060602045602/http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/white-house-knew-there-were-no-wmd-cia/2006/04/22/1145344306427.html|archive-date=2 June 2006|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}} The leaked Downing Street Memo, an internal summary of a meeting between British defense and intelligence officials, states that Bush administration had decided to attack Iraq and to "fix intelligence" to support the WMD pretext to justify it. A transcript of a secret conversation between President Bush and PM Blair leaked by a government whistleblower reveals that the US and UK were prepared to invade Iraq even if no WMD were found.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?pagewanted=2|title=Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says|work=The New York Times|first=Don Van|last=Natta, Jr|date=27 March 2006|access-date=22 February 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141105232114/http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?pagewanted=2|archive-date=5 November 2014|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}} (see also the Downing Street Memorandum) British officials in the memo also discuss a proposal by President Bush to provoke Iraq, including using fake UN planes, to manufacture a pretext for the invasion he had already decided on. Best evidence of that false intelligence has been Niger uranium story because on 14 March 2003 (before the invasion) it became public knowledge that president Tandja Mamadou's signatory had been forged.{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html|title=Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S.|work=CNN|date=14 March 2003|access-date=29 April 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090927013535/http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html|archive-date=27 September 2009|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}

In 2004 the Butler Commission Report concluded that, "on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time", statements by the British Government "on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa" were "well-founded". Opponents however consider the Butler Review a whitewash which lacked cross-party support (the panel was appointed by, and reported directly to, the Prime Minister).{{cite journal|issue=1100|url=http://www.overcast.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/print/press/private_eye.htm|title=Iraq crisis & what the Butler will not see|journal=Private Eye|date=20 February 2004|access-date=26 June 2015|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120907132755/http://www.overcast.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/print/press/private_eye.htm|archive-date=7 September 2012}}

The Iraq Intelligence Commission rejected claims that the Bush administration attempted to influence the intelligence community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs, but it did not investigate whether the administration misled the public about the intelligence.{{cite web|url=http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html |title=Iraq: What Did Congress Know, And When? |publisher=Factcheck.org, 19 November 2005 |access-date=7 October 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927191023/http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html |archive-date=27 September 2007 }}

{{blockquote|

The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments.{{cite web|url=http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html |title=Iraq: What Did Congress Know, And When? |publisher=FactCheck.org |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927191023/http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html |archive-date=2007-09-27 }}

}}

Paul R. Pillar, a 28-year veteran of the CIA, wrote in Foreign Affairs that the method of investigation used by [these] panels—essentially, asking analysts whether their arms had been twisted—would have caught only the crudest attempts at politicization:

{{blockquote|The actual politicization of intelligence occurs subtly and can take many forms. … Well before March 2003, intelligence analysts and their managers knew that the United States was heading for war with Iraq. It was clear that the Bush administration would frown on or ignore analysis that called into question a decision to go to war and welcome analysis that supported such a decision. Intelligence analysts … felt a strong wind consistently blowing in one direction.{{cite web|url=http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html |title=Intelligence, Policy, and the War in Iraq |publisher=Foreign Affairs |date=March–April 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071110203614/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html |archive-date=2007-11-10 }}}}

Pillar holds that intelligence was "misused to justify decisions already made".{{cite magazine |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1158967,00.html |title=Verbatim: Feb. 20, 2006 |magazine=Time |date=14 February 2006 |access-date=7 March 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070816032407/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1158967,00.html |archive-date=16 August 2007 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}

Regime documents captured inside Iraq by coalition forces are reported to reveal Saddam's frustration with weapon inspections. Meeting transcripts record him saying to senior aides: "We don't have anything hidden!" He questions whether inspectors would "roam Iraq for 50 years". "When is this going to end?", he remarks. He tells his deputies in another: "Don't think for a minute that we still have WMD. We have nothing."{{cite news |url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188665,00.html |title=Transcripts Show Saddam Frustrated Over WMD Claims |publisher=Fox News |date=22 March 2006 |access-date=14 September 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070530183418/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188665,00.html |archive-date=30 May 2007 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}

Former General Georges Sada maintains the Iraqi leadership ordered the removal of WMD from Iraq to Syria before the 2003 invasion, in spite of the findings by the Iraq Survey Group, citing an unnamed Iraqi airline captain said to be involved with the operations.{{cite book |last1=Sada |first1=Georges |last2=Nelson Black |first2=Jim |title=Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein |date=2006 |publisher=Integrity Publishers |isbn=1-59145-404-2 |page=260 }} On an episode of The Daily Show, Sada reiterated these claims.{{Cite episode |title= |episode-link= |series= The Daily Show|series-link= |first1= Jon|last1= Stewart|first2= Georges|last2= Sada|network= Comedy Central|date= 21 March 2006|season= 11|number= 37|quote= Stewart: "Now this is not- Is this firsthand knowledge of yours? Somebody told you this, you've seen it." [...] Sada: "After 90's, after 90's, [sic] they were there, and how I knew they were there, after they were transported, the pilots who transported it, they told me." Stewart: "The guys who flew there..." Sada: "The guys who were responsible-"}} The final report on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, issued by Charles Duelfer, concluded in April 2005 that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction had "gone as far as feasible" and found nothing. However, Duelfer reported though that the search for WMD material turned up nothing that his team was "unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials".{{cite web |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7634313 |title=CIA's final report: No WMD found in Iraq |publisher=NBC News |date=25 April 2003 |access-date=19 January 2007 |df=mdy-all }}

File:State positions Iraq war.svg

Support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq included 49 nations, a group that was frequently referred to as the "coalition of the willing". These nations provided combat troops, support troops, and logistical support for the invasion. The nations contributing combat forces during the initial invasion were, roughly:

Total 297,384 – 99% US & UK

The United States (250,000 84%), the United Kingdom (45,000 15%), Australia (2,000 0.6%), Denmark (200 0.06%), and Poland (184 0.06%), these totals do not include the 50,000+ Iraqi Kurdish soldiers that assisted the coalition. Ten other countries offered small numbers of non-combat forces, mostly either medical teams and specialists in decontamination. In several of these countries a majority of the public was opposed to the war. For example, in Spain polls reported at one time a 90% opposition to the war. In most other countries less than 10% of the populace supported an invasion of Iraq without a specific go-ahead from the UN.{{cite web |url=http://www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/survey.asp?id=10 |title=Iraq Poll 2003 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090126150127/http://www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/survey.asp?id=10 |archive-date=2009-01-26 }} According to a mid-January 2003 telephone poll, approximately one-third of the U.S. population supported a unilateral invasion by the US and its allies, while two-thirds supported war if directly authorized by the U.N.{{cite press release |url=http://www.gallup-international.com/download/GIA%20press%20release%20Iraq%20Survey%202003.pdf |title=Gallup Poll Results |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110927044750/http://www.gallup-international.com/download/GIA%20press%20release%20Iraq%20Survey%202003.pdf |archive-date=2011-09-27 }}{{cite web |url= http://www.gallup-international.com/download//GIA%20Iraq%20Survey%20-%20Results.zip |title= Gallup Poll Results |access-date= 2006-01-30 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20051227030043/http://www.gallup-international.com/download/GIA%20Iraq%20Survey%20-%20Results.zip |archive-date= 2005-12-27 |url-status= dead }}

Global protests expressed opposition to the invasion. In many Middle Eastern and Islamic countries there were mass protests, as well as in Europe. On the government level, the war was criticized by Canada, Belgium, Chile, Russia, France, the People's Republic of China, Germany, Switzerland, the Vatican, India, Iraq, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Brazil, Mexico, the Arab League, the African Union and many others. Although many nations opposed the war, no foreign government openly supported Saddam Hussein, and none volunteered any assistance to the Iraqi side. Leading traditional allies of the U.S. who had supported Security Council Resolution 1441, France, Germany and Russia, emerged as a united front opposed to the U.S.-led invasion, urging that the UN weapons inspectors be given time to complete their work.

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud said the U.S. military could not use Saudi Arabia's soil in any way to attack Iraq.{{cite web | url=https://www.foxnews.com/story/saudis-ban-attack-on-iraq-from-their-soil | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130405021640/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59796,00.html | archive-date=2013-04-05 | title=Saudis Ban Attack on Iraq from Their Soil | url-status=live | website=Fox News }} After ten years of U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, cited among reasons by Saudi-born Osama bin Laden for his al-Qaeda attacks on America on 11 September 2001, most of U.S. forces were withdrawn in 2003.https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-08-28-ustroops-saudiarabia_x.htm {{Bare URL inline|date=August 2024}}

{{Main|Opposition to the Iraq War}}

Those who opposed the war in Iraq did not regard Iraq's violation of UN resolutions to be a valid case for the war, since no single nation has the authority, under the UN Charter, to judge Iraq's compliance to UN resolutions and to enforce them. Furthermore, critics argued that the US was applying double standards of justice, noting that other nations such as Israel are also in breach of UN resolutions and have nuclear weapons.{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast/2384905.stm |publisher=BBC News |title=Focus on Iraq: the UN |date=1 November 2002 |access-date=7 May 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110514005922/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast/2384905.stm |archive-date=14 May 2011 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}

Giorgio Agamben, the Italian philosopher, has offered a critique of the logic of preemptive war.

Although Iraq was known to have pursued an active nuclear weapons development program previously, as well as to have tried to procure materials and equipment for their manufacture, these weapons and material have yet to be discovered. President Bush's reference to Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium in Africa in his 2003 State of the Union address are by now commonly considered as having been based on forged documents (see Yellowcake forgery).

Robert Fisk, Middle East correspondent for The Independent, comments in his book The Great War for Civilisation that history is repeating itself. Fisk, in the Dutch TV news program Nova: "It is not just similar, it is 'fingerprint' the same." In 1917, the UK invaded Iraq, claiming to come "not as conquerors but as liberators". After an insurrection in 1920, "the first town that was bombed was Fallujah and the next town that was laid siege to was Najaf". Then, the British army intelligence services claimed that terrorists were crossing the border from Syria. Prime minister Lloyd George stood up in the house of commons and declared that "if British troops leave Iraq there will be civil war". The British were going to set up a democracy in Iraq. In a referendum, however, a king was 'elected'. "They decided they would no longer use troops on the ground, it was too dangerous, they would use the Royal Air force to bomb villages from the air. And eventually, [...] we left and our leaders were overthrown and the Ba'ath party, which was a revolutionary socialist party at the time—Saddam Hussein—took over. And I'm afraid that the Iraq we are creating now is an Iraq of anarchy and chaos. And as long as we stay there, the chaos will get worse."

Pope John Paul II spoke out against the war several times, and said that a war with Iraq would be a "disaster" and a "crime against peace". During the build-up to the war, a hundred Christian scholars of ethical theory issued a statement condemning the war as morally unjustifiable. Their brief statement, which was published in the 23 September edition of the [Chronicle of Higher Education], read as follows: "As Christian Ethicists, we share a common moral presumption against a preemptive war on Iraq by the United States." The group included scholars from a wide array of universities, including traditionally left-leaning Ivy League schools as well as more conservative institutions such as Lipscomb University, in Nashville, Lubbock Christian University, in Lubbock, Texas (both affiliated with the Churches of Christ), and the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond.{{cite web|url=http://chronicle.com/daily/2002/09/2002092302n.htm |title=The Chronicle of Higher Education |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080516213638/http://chronicle.com/daily/2002/09/2002092302n.htm |archive-date=16 May 2008 }} Other scholars of the just war theory asserted that war with Iraq could be justified on the grounds of defense of a "helpless other". This position is based on the position that war could be justified on the grounds of liberating a helpless people being victimized by a tyrannical ruler.Minami, Wayde. "World Left with Brutal Decision on Possible Invasion of Iraq." Air Force Times 63:54 18 November 2002.

The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.Charter of the United Nations, Chapter XIV, The International Court of Justice, [http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=1&p3=0#Chapter14 Article 92], {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170927023059/http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=1&p3=0#Chapter14 |date=27 September 2017 }} The General Assembly or the Security Council may request that the International Court of Justice provide an advisory opinion on any legal question. Any organ or agency of the UN so authorized by the General Assembly may also request the ICJ for an advisory opinion.Charter of the United Nations, Chapter XIV, The International Court of Justice, [http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=1&p3=0#Chapter14 Article 96], {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170927023059/http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=1&p3=0#Chapter14 |date=27 September 2017 }}

The United Nations Charter is the foundation of modern international law.Howard Friel and Richard Falk, "The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports Foreign Policy," Chapter I, "Without Law of Facts, The United States Invades Iraq," pages 15-17 The US and its principal coalition allies in the 2003 invasion of Iraq have all ratified the charter and are thus legally bound by its terms. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter generally bans the use of force by states except when carefully circumscribed conditions are met, stating:

All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art2 {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160421122334/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm |date=2016-04-21 }}

According to Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General International Commission of Jurists, this rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined".International Commission of Jurists, 18 March 2003, [http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en Iraq - ICJ Deplores Moves Toward a War of Aggression on Iraq] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030407232423/http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en |date=2003-04-07 }} Therefore, in the absence of an armed attack against the US or the coalition members, any legal use or threat of force against Iraq had to be supported by a UN Security Council resolution.

However, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, the US and its coalition allies reserved the right to self-defense even without a UN mandate. The US cited the 1993 assassination attempt on former US President George H. W. Bush and the firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire no-fly zones over Northern and Southern Iraq. The US also cited Iraq's major offensive against the city of Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan in violation of UNSC Resolution 688, prohibiting repression of Iraq's ethnic minorities. In retaliation, the US conducted the bombing of Iraq in June 1993 and again in 1996.

The US and UK governments, along with others, also stated that the invasion was entirely legal because it was already authorized by existing United Nations Security Council resolutions. They characterized the invasion as a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities rather than a war of aggression, as the US and UK were acting as agents for Kuwait's defense in response to Iraq's 1990 invasion.{{cite web |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/joint_resolution_10-11-02.html |title=Online NewsHour: Text of Joint Congressional Resolution on Iraq - October 11, 2002 |publisher=Pbs.org |access-date=2010-04-19 |archive-date=30 October 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101030003849/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/joint_resolution_10-11-02.html |url-status=dead }}[https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2003/18850.htm Saddam Hussein's Defiance of UNSCRs]{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/resolutions/s-res-1441.pdf|title=UN Security Council resolution 1441|website=UN.org|access-date=17 November 2017}} Some international legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, the U.S.-based National Lawyers' Guild,National Lawyers' Guild, 2007 Amendments and Resolutions, "Resolution on Impeachment of Bush and Cheney," http://nlg.org/membership/resolutions/2007%20Resolutions/Impeachment%20resolution.pdf {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110727124725/http://nlg.org/membership/resolutions/2007%20Resolutions/Impeachment%20resolution.pdf |date=2011-07-27 }} a group of 31 Canadian law professors, and the U.S.-based Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy, have found this legal rationale to be untenable and are of the view that the invasion was not supported by UN resolution and was therefore illegal.{{cite web|url=http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm |title=Links to Opinions of Legality of War Against Iraq |publisher=Robincmiller.com |access-date=2010-04-19}}{{cite web|url=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0321-10.htm |title=Law Groups Say U.S. Invasion Illegal |publisher=Commondreams.org |date=2003-03-21 |access-date=2010-04-19 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040215193958/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0321-10.htm |archive-date=2004-02-15 }}{{cite web|url=http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en |title=International Commission of Jurists |publisher=Icj.org |access-date=2010-04-19 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030407232423/http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en |archive-date=2003-04-07 }}

File:Desert fox missile.jpg (TLAM) is fired from an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer during the fourth wave of attacks on Iraq in support of Operation Desert Fox.]]

As part of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement, the Iraqi government agreed to Security Council Resolution 687, which called for weapons inspectors to search locations in Iraq for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as weapons that exceed an effective distance of 150 kilometres.{{cite web |url=https://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/resolution687.htm |title=Resolution 687 |publisher=United Nations Security Council |access-date=2017-06-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170610103845/http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/resolution687.htm |archive-date=2017-06-10 |url-status=live }} After the passing of resolution 687, thirteen additional resolutions (699, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, 1284) were passed by the Security Council reaffirming the continuation of inspections, or citing Iraq's failure to comply fully with them.{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm|title=Chronology of December 1999|publisher=United Nations|access-date=2017-06-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080710022117/http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm|archive-date=2008-07-10|url-status=live}} On 9 September 1998, the Security Council passed resolution 1194 which unanimously condemns Iraq's suspension of cooperation with UNSCOM, one month later on 31 October Iraq officially declares it will cease all forms of interaction with UNSCOM.{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9810/31/iraq.un.01/index.html |title=Iraq stops cooperation with UNSCOM |publisher=CNN |date=31 October 1998 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060308043806/http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9810/31/iraq.un.01/index.html |archive-date=8 March 2006 }}

The period between 31 October 1998, and the initiation of Operation Desert Fox (16 December 1998), contained talks by the Iraqi government with the United Nations Security Council. During these talks Iraq attempted to attach conditions to the work of UNSCOM and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which was against previous resolutions calling for unconditional access. The situation was defused after Iraq's Ambassador to the U.N., Nizar Hamdoon, submitted a third letter stating the position of the Iraqi government on 31 October was "void".{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/15/iraq.01/index.html |title=Iraq blinks: Last-minute letters try to avert war |date=15 November 1998 |publisher=CNN |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070706102123/http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/15/iraq.01/index.html |archive-date=6 July 2007 }} After weapons inspections resumed, UNSCOM requested arms documents related to weapon usage and destruction during the Iran–Iraq War. The Iraqi government rejected this request because it was handwritten and did not fall within the scope of the UN mandate. The UN inspectors insisted in order to know if Iraq destroyed all of its weapons, it had to know "the total holdings of Iraq's chemical weapons".{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/20/iraq.02/index.html |title=Iraq resists request for arms documents |publisher=CNN |date=20 November 1998 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050204153954/http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/20/iraq.02/index.html |archive-date= 4 February 2005 }} Further incidents erupted as Iraqi officials demanded "lists of things and materials" being searched for during surprise inspections.{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/09/iraq.02/index.html |title=Weapons chief says Iraqi inspection rebuff 'very serious' |publisher=CNN |date=9 December 1998 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20021002184426/http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/09/iraq.02/index.html |archive-date=2 October 2002 }}

On 16 December 1998, U.S. President Bill Clinton initiated Operation Desert Fox based on Iraq's failure to fully comply with the inspectors. Clinton noted the announcement made by the Iraqi government on 31 October, stating they would no longer cooperate with UNSCOM. Also noted was the numerous efforts to hinder UNSCOM officials, including prevention of photographing evidence and photocopying documents, as well as prevention of interviewing Iraqi personnel.{{cite press release|publisher=The White House|date=1998-12-16|title=Address by the President to the Nation on Iraq Air Strike|url=http://clinton6.nara.gov/1998/12/1998-12-16-address-by-the-president-to-the-nation-on-iraq-air-strike.html|access-date=2009-04-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100705235230/http://clinton6.nara.gov/1998/12/1998-12-16-address-by-the-president-to-the-nation-on-iraq-air-strike.html|archive-date=2010-07-05|url-status=dead}}

File:Rumsfeld-Memo-HowStart.jpg

Inspection teams were withdrawn before the Operation Desert Fox bombing campaign and did not return for four years. The United Nations no-fly zone enforced by the United States, United Kingdom and France—also legality disputed—became a location of constant exchange of fire since Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan instructed Iraqi military to attack all planes in the no-fly zone.{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/26/iraq.02/index.html |title=Iraq says it will fire at planes in no-fly zones |date=26 December 1998 |publisher=CNN |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070919012945/http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/26/iraq.02/index.html |archive-date=19 September 2007 }}

A memo written by US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld dated 27 Nov 2001 considers a US invasion of Iraq. One section of the memo questions "How start?", listing multiple possible justifications for a US-Iraq War, one scenario being "Dispute over WMD inspections—Start thinking now about inspection demands". In late 2002, after international pressure and more UN Resolutions, Iraq allowed inspection teams back into the country. In 2003, UNMOVIC was inspecting Iraq but were ordered out.{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/07/politics.iraq |title=Blix wants months – and Straw offers 10 days |location=London |work=The Guardian |first=Sarah |last=Left |date=7 March 2003 |access-date=15 December 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160917045756/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/07/politics.iraq |archive-date=17 September 2016 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/ |title=Transcript of chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix's Presentation to the U.N. Security Council |publisher=CNN |date=7 March 2003 |access-date=28 February 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080130005742/http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/ |archive-date=30 January 2008 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }} There is no credible evidence of WMD production (see Duelfer Report) and no WMDs have been found to date after 1991 (see below and WMD in Iraq). George W. Bush has since admitted that "much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong".{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.iraq/index.html |title=Bush takes responsibility for invasion intelligence |publisher=CNN |date=14 December 2005 |access-date=28 February 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060211222322/http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.iraq/index.html |archive-date=11 February 2006 |url-status=live |df=dmy-all }}

The United States offered intelligence from the Central Intelligence Agency and British MI5 to the United Nations Security Council suggesting that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. claimed that justification rested upon Iraq's violation of several U.N. Resolutions, most recently UN Security Council Resolution 1441.{{cite press release|publisher=The White House|date=2003-02-05|title=U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/02/print/20030205-1.html|access-date=2017-09-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170712023729/https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/02/print/20030205-1.html|archive-date=2017-07-12|url-status=live}} U.S. president George W. Bush claimed Iraq's WMDs posed a significant threat to the United States and its allies.{{cite press release|publisher=The White House|date=2003-03-19|title=President Bush Addresses the Nation|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030319-17.html|access-date=2017-09-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160517180222/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030319-17.html|archive-date=2016-05-17|url-status=live}}{{cite press release|publisher=The White House|date=2003-03-17|title=President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030317-7.html|access-date=2017-09-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304060228/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030317-7.html|archive-date=2016-03-04|url-status=live}} An inspection team UNMOVIC, before completing its UN-mandate or completing its report was ordered out by the UN because the US-led invasion appeared imminent.

The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that, "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."{{cite news |author=Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq |title=Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan |work=Guardian |date=2004-09-16 |access-date=2010-04-19 |location=London |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130828073847/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq |archive-date=2013-08-28 |url-status=live }}

The political leaders of the US and UK at the time argued that the war was legal, and that existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the first Persian Gulf War and the subsequent ceasefire (660, 678), and to later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs (1441), had already authorized the invasion.{{Cite web |url=https://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/9043.pdf |title=We're sorry, that page can't be found |access-date=2017-06-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170930035515/https://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/9043.pdf |archive-date=2017-09-30 |url-status=live }} Critics of the invasion have challenged both of these assertions, arguing that an additional Security Council resolution would have been necessary to specifically authorize the invasion.{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm| date=16 September 2004| title=Iraq war illegal, says Annan| publisher=BBC News| access-date=2006-05-25| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090115131657/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm| archive-date=15 January 2009| url-status=live| df=dmy-all}}{{cite web|url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php |title=UN RESOLUTION 1441: COMPELLING SADDAM, RESTRAINING BUSH |first=Mary Ellen |last=O'Connell |publisher=Jurist |access-date=2006-05-25 |date=21 November 2002 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060516140700/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php |archive-date=2006-05-16 }}{{cite web| url=http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/| publisher=World Press Review Online| title=International Law – War in Iraq – United Nations – Iraq| first=Rachel S| last=Taylor| access-date=2006-05-25| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130730223344/http://worldpress.org/specials/iraq/| archive-date=2013-07-30| url-status=live}}

UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously on 8 November 2002, to give Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (resolution 660, resolution 661, resolution 678, resolution 686, resolution 687, resolution 688, resolution 707, resolution 715, resolution 986, and resolution 1284). According to the US State Department, "The resolution strengthened the mandate of the UN Monitoring and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), giving them authority to go anywhere, at any time and talk to anyone in order to verify Iraq's disarmament."[https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2003/17926.htm United States Department of State]: Fact Sheet, 25 February 2003. Verified 11 November 2007.

The most important text of Resolution 1441 was to require that Iraq "shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect".{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/dec/20/iraq.foreignpolicy2 |title=Full text: UN security council resolution 1441 on Iraq |date=2002-12-20 |publisher=Guardian |location=London}} However, on 27 January 2003, Hans Blix, the lead member of the UNMOVIC, said that, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it." Blix noted that Iraq had failed to cooperate in a number of areas, including (1) the failure to provide safety to U-2 spy planes that inspectors hoped to use for aerial surveillance, (2) refusal to let UN inspectors into several chemical, biological, and missile sites on the belief that they were engaging in espionage rather than disarmament, (3) submitting a 12,000-page arms declaration in December 2002, which contained little more than old material previously submitted to inspectors, and (4) failure to produce convincing evidence to the UN inspectors that it had unilaterally destroyed its anthrax stockpiles as required by resolution 687 a decade before 1441 was passed in 2002.{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/27/iraq3 |title=Key points of Hans Blix's statement |date=2003-01-27 |publisher=Guardian |location=London}} On 7 March 2003, Blix said that Iraq had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament but the cooperation was still not "immediate" and "unconditional" as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take "but months" to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.{{cite web |date=2003-03-07 |title=UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTORS REPORT TO SECURITY COUNCIL ON PROGRESS IN DISARMAMENT OF IRAQ |url=https://press.un.org/en/2003/sc7682.doc.htm |access-date=2023-07-26 |publisher=Un.org}} The US government observed this as a breach of resolution 1441 because Iraq did not meet the requirement of "immediate" and "unconditional" compliance.{{cite book |title=War, Aggression and Self-Defence |page=305 |date=12 December 2011 |author=Yoram Dinstein |publisher=Cambridge University Press}}

On the day Resolution 1441 was passed, the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, assured the Security Council that there were no "hidden triggers" with respect to the use of force and that, in the event of a "further breach" by Iraq, resolution 1441 would require that "the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12". However, he then added, "If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security."{{UN document |docid=S-PV-4644 |body=Security Council |type=Verbatim Report |meeting=4644 |page=3 |anchor=pg003-bk01-pa05 |date=8 November 2002|meetingtime=10:00 |speakername=Mr. Negroponte | speakernation=United States |accessdate=2007-09-13 }}

At the same meeting, UK Permanent Representative Sir Jeremy Greenstock KCMG used many of the same words and stated, "If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12."[https://www.un.org/webcast/unitedkingdom110802.htm Meeting of the UNSC] Sir Jeremy Greenstock KCMG, UK Permanent Representative, 8 November 2002. "... will return to the Council for discussion as required ..." Verified 11 November 2007.

On 17 March 2003, the Attorney General for England and Wales, Lord Goldsmith, agreed that the use of force against Iraq was justified by resolution 1441 in combination with the earlier resolutions 678 and 687.{{cite news |url= https://www.theguardian.com/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1471659,00.html|title= A case for war|access-date=2008-01-12 |date= 2003-03-17|publisher=Guardian Unlimited | location=London}}

According to an independent commission of inquiry set up by the government of the Netherlands, UN resolution 1441 "cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorizing individual member states to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council's resolutions".Al Jazeera, 12 January 2010, "Dutch Inquiry: Iraq Invasion was Illegal," http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/01/2010112144254948980.html{{cite web|date=12 January 2010|title=Iraq Invasion Violated International Law, Dutch Inquiry Finds: Investigation into the Netherlands' Support for 2003 War Finds Military Action was Not Justified under UN Resolutions|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-invasion-violated-interational-law-dutch-inquiry-finds|website=The Guardian}}

As part of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement, the Iraqi government agreed to UN Security Council Resolution 687, which called for weapons inspectors to search locations in Iraq for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, as well as for weapons that exceeded an effective distance of 150 kilometers.{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/resolution687.htm |title=Security Council Resolution 687 |publisher=Un.org |access-date=2010-04-19}} After the passing of resolution 687, thirteen additional resolutions (699, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, 1284) were passed by the Security Council, reaffirming the continuation of inspections or citing Iraq's failure to comply fully with them.{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm |title=Chronology of main events |publisher=Un.org |access-date=2010-04-19}} On 9 September 1998, the Security Council passed Resolution 1194, which unanimously condemned Iraq's suspension of cooperation with UNSCOM. One month later, on 31 October, Iraq officially declared that it would cease all forms of interaction with UNSCOM.{{cite news | url=http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9810/31/iraq.un.01/index.html?eref=sitesearch | title=Iraq stops cooperation with UNSCOM | publisher=CNN | date=31 October 1998 | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080307060445/http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9810/31/iraq.un.01/index.html?eref=sitesearch|archivedate=7 March 2008}}

Resolution 678 (1990) allows the use of any means necessary to enforce resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions in order to force Iraq to stop certain activities that threaten international peace and security, such as making weapons of mass destruction and refusing or obstructing United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 68.

The commission of inquiry by the government of the Netherlands found that the UN resolution of the 1990s provided no authority for the invasion.

The legal right to determine how to enforce its own resolutions lies with the Security Council alone (UN Charter Articles 39–42){{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ |title=Charter of the United Nations |publisher=Un.org |access-date=2010-04-19 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090220011242/http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ |archive-date=2009-02-20 }} and not with individual nations.{{cite web| url=http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/| publisher=World Press Review Online| title=International Law - War in Iraq - United Nations - Iraq| first=Rachel S.| last= Taylor| access-date=2006-05-25}} On 8 November 2002, immediately after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1441, Russia, the People's Republic of China, and France issued a joint statement declaring that Council Resolution 1441 did not authorize any "automaticity" in the use of force against Iraq and that a further Council resolution was needed if force were to be used.{{cite web |url= http://www.un.int/france/documents_anglais/021108_cs_france_irak_2.htm|title= Joint statement from the Popular Republic of China, the Federation of Russia, and France|access-date=2008-03-23|date=2002-11-08|publisher=UN.int}} Critics pointed out that statements from US officials leading up to the war indicated their belief that a new Security Council resolution was required to make an invasion legal. They also pointed out that the UN Security Council had not made such a determination despite serious debate over this issue. To secure Syria's vote in favor of Council Resolution 1441, Secretary of State Powell reportedly advised Syrian officials that "there is nothing in the resolution to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq".Wintour, Patrick and Brian Whitaker. [https://www.theguardian.com/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,837561,00.html "UK expects Iraq to fail arms tests"]. The Guardian, 11 November 2002. Retrieved 6 April 2007.

The UN Security Council, as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, theoretically has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but the US and the UK have veto power in the Security Council, so action is highly improbable even if the issue were to be raised. Despite this, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) may ask that the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—"the principal judicial organ of the United Nations" (Article 92)—give either an 'advisory opinion' or 'judgement' on the legality of the war. Indeed, the UNGA asked the ICJ to give an 'advisory opinion' on "the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel", by its resolution A/RES/ES-10/14,[https://www.un.org/ga/sessions/emergency.shtml UNGA Emergency Special Sessions.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170703103536/http://www.un.org/ga/sessions/emergency.shtml |date=2017-07-03 }} UN.org. as recently as 12 December 2003; despite opposition from permanent members of the Security Council. It achieved this by sitting in tenth 'emergency special session', under the framework of the 'Uniting for Peace' resolution. The ICJ had previously found against the US for its actions in Nicaragua, a finding the US refused to comply with.

The United States structured its reports to the United Nations Security Council around intelligence from the Central Intelligence Agency and Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) stating that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. The US claimed that justification for the war rested upon Iraq's violation of several UN resolutions, with the most recent being UN Security Council Resolution 1441.{{cite web |url= https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html|title= U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council |access-date=2008-01-12 |date= 2003-02-05|publisher=The White House}}

According to a detailed legal investigation conducted by an independent commission of inquiry set up by the government of the Netherlands, the 2003 invasion violated international law. The investigation was headed by former Netherlands Supreme Court president Willibrord Davids and concluded that the notion of "regime change", as practiced by the powers that invaded Iraq, had "no basis in international law".{{cite web|url=http://www.rnw.nl/english/radioshow/iraq-war-report-critical-dutch-pm |title=Network Europe - Iraq war report critical of Dutch PM |publisher=Rnw.nl |date=2010-01-12 |access-date=2010-04-19}} Also, the commission found that UN resolution 1441 "cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorizing individual member states to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council's resolutions".{{cite web|url=http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/01/prime_minister_disagrees_with.php |title=Prime minister disagrees with Iraq report |publisher=Dutchnews.nl |date=2010-01-12 |access-date=2010-04-19}} In a letter to the parliament, the Dutch cabinet admitted that MPs could have been better informed about the doubts and uncertainties of the Dutch intelligence services and about the United States' request for Dutch support.{{cite web|author=De Nonconformist |url=http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-cabinet-responds-iraq-war-report |title=Dutch cabinet responds to Iraq war report |publisher=Rnw.nl |date=2010-02-20 |access-date=2010-04-19}}{{cite web|url=http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/02/cabinet_admits_iraq_war_mistak.php |title=Cabinet admits Iraq war mistakes |publisher=Dutchnews.nl |date=2010-02-09 |access-date=2010-04-19}}[http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/dutch-cabinet-admits-errors-iraq-invasion "Dutch cabinet admits errors of Iraq invasion"]{{cite web|url=http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/dutch-rss-news/dutch-cabinet-admits-errors-of-iraq-invasion_23389.html|title=Dutch cabinet admits errors of Iraq invasion|website=Expatica.com|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140504000606/http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/dutch-rss-news/dutch-cabinet-admits-errors-of-iraq-invasion_23389.html|archive-date=4 May 2014|access-date=14 June 2021}}

The Davids inquiry also investigated rumors but was unable to find any proof that the appointment of former Dutch foreign minister De Hoop Scheffer as NATO secretary general was the result of his support for the US-led invasion of Iraq. In February 2010, De Hoop Scheffer himself criticized the Davids Commission report. In an interview with newspaper de Volkskrant, he argued that the cabinet did fully inform parliament and that there had never been any doubts. He rejected the conclusion that it took less than 45 minutes to decide to give political support to the United States. He also contested the conclusion that Prime Minister Balkenende failed to provide adequate leadership. In addition, he argued that no United Nations mandate was needed for the invasion of Iraq and remarked that there was no UN mandate when the Netherlands supported the 1991 US operations in Iraq.{{cite web|url=http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/dutch-rss-news/former-minister-lashes-out-at-iraq-inquiry_24550.html |title=Former minister lashes out at Iraq inquiry |publisher=Expatica.com |access-date=2010-04-19}}{{in lang|nl}}[http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/article1348591.ece/De_Hoop_Scheffer_kraakt_rapport-Davids "De Hoop Scheffer kraakt rapport-Davids"]{{in lang|nl}}[http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/article1342106.ece/De_Hoop_Scheffer_vertraagd_terugtrekken_mogelijk "De Hoop Scheffer: vertraagd terugtrekken mogelijk"]

Jack Straw, then UK Foreign Secretary, sent a secret letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair in April 2002, warning Blair that the case for military action against Iraq was of "dubious legality". The letter goes on to state that "regime change per se is no justification for military action" and that "the weight of legal advice here is that a fresh [UN] mandate may well be required". Such a new UN mandate was never given. The letter also expresses doubts regarding the outcome of military action.The Sunday Times (UK), 17 Jan 2010, "Revealed: Jack Straw's Secret Warning to Tony Blair on Iraq," [https://web.archive.org/web/20110604150350/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6991087.ece]

In March 2003, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, then deputy legal adviser to the British Foreign Office, resigned in protest of Britain's decision to invade without Security Council authorization. Wilmshurst also insinuated that the English Attorney General Lord Goldsmith also believed the war was illegal but that he changed his opinion several weeks before the invasion.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4377605.stm Wilmshurst Resignation Letter]. BBC.com, 24 March 2005. Retrieved on 29 May 2007.{{cite web| url=http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pdf/Iraq%20Resolution%201441.pdf| title=Iraq Resolution 1441| access-date=2006-05-26| publisher=Number-10.gov.uk| date=7 March 2003| url-status=dead| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050428194646/http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pdf/Iraq%20Resolution%201441.pdf| archive-date=28 April 2005}}

In March 2004, when a Royal Court trial raised the question of whether the invasion was legal, the under-secretary of state, Sir Michael Hastings, wrote to the court and warned, "it would be prejudicial to the national interest and to the conduct of the Government's foreign policy if the English courts were to express opinions on questions of international law."

In 2010, then-deputy prime minister of a later government Nick Clegg, during prime minister's questions in Parliament, asserted that the Iraq war was illegal. Statements issued later suggested that this was a personal view and not a formal view of the coalition government.{{cite news| url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10715629 | work=BBC News | title=Clegg clarifies stance after saying Iraq war 'illegal' | date=2010-07-21}}

In 2016, the deputy prime minister at the time of the invasion, John Prescott, wrote: "In 2004, the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that as regime change was the prime aim of the Iraq War, it was illegal. With great sadness and anger, I now believe him to be right."{{Cite web|url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/john-prescott-reveals-guilt-illegal-8387319|title=Guilt at the 'illegal' Iraq War will haunt Prescott for the rest of his life|last=Prescott|first=John|website=Daily Mirror |date=2016-07-10|access-date=2016-07-15}}

In 2017, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the invasion, Gordon Brown, in his memoir "My Life - Our Times" said that US president George W Bush duped Tony Blair into the 2003 Iraq War. Brown sensationally revealed that the US kept quiet about a top-secret report which showed there was no evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Brown added, "It is astonishing that none of us in the British government ever saw this American report."https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/us-lied-drag-britain-war-11469154 {{Bare URL inline|date=August 2024}}

The Iraq Inquiry in the UK later found that the legal basis for the law was questionable.

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg held following World War II that the waging of a war of aggression is:

{{blockquote|essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.{{cite book|last= Broomhall | first= Bruce |title= International justice and the International Criminal Court | publisher= Oxford University Press | edition= 2| page= 46 | isbn= 978-0-19-925600-6|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-Ni6Qy2E9KwC&q=essentially+an+evil+thing...to+initiate+a+war+of+aggression...is+not+only+an+international+crime%3B+it+is+the+supreme+international+crime,+differing+only+from+other+war+crimes+in+that+it+contains+within+itself+the+accumulated+evil+of+the+whole.&pg=PA46| year= 2003 }}}}

Benjamin B. Ferencz was a former law professor and one of the chief prosecutors for the United States at the military trials of German officials following World War II. In an interview given on 25 August 2006, Ferencz stated that in addition to Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush should be tried as well because the Iraq War was started by the U.S. without permission by the UN Security Council.Glantz, A.: [http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/138319/1/ Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor], OneWorld U.S., 25 August 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-12. Benjamin B. Ferencz wrote the foreword for Michael Haas's book, George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes.{{Cite book| last=Haas | first=Michael | year=2008 | title=George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes | publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group | isbn= 978-0-313-36499-0}}

Ferencz elaborated as follows:

{{blockquote|a prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.AlterNet, 2006 July 10, "Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes? A Nuremberg Chief Prosecutor Says there is a Case for Trying Bush for the 'Supreme Crime Against Humanity, an Illegal War of Aggression Against a Sovereign Nation,'" http://www.alternet.org/world/38604/

...

The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States, formulated by the United States, in fact, after World War II. It says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, "Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found – then we'll figure out what we're going to do." The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq – which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter.}}

Professor Ferencz quoted the resignation letter of British deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who resigned suddenly before the Iraq war started:

{{blockquote|I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution. [A]n unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances that are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law.}}

According to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva, the invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression.International Commission of Jurists, 18 Mar. 2003, "Iraq - ICJ Deplores Moves Toward a War of Aggression on Iraq"

{{cite web|url=http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article%3D2770%26lang%3Den |title=International Commission of Jurists |access-date=2015-12-09 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030407232423/http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en |archive-date=2003-04-07 }} A "war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force". We note with "deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression".World Socialist Website, 26 Mar. 2003, "International legal Experts Regard Iraq War as Illegal", http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/ilaw-m26.shtmlInternational Commission of Jurists, 18 Mar. 2003, "Iraq - ICJ Deplores Moves Toward a War of Aggression on Iraq" {{cite web|url=http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article%3D2770%26lang%3Den |title=International Commission of Jurists |access-date=2015-12-09 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030407232423/http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en |archive-date=2003-04-07 }}

Then Iraq Ambassador to the United Nations Mohammed Aldouri shared the view that the invasion was a violation of international law and constituted a war of aggression,CNN, 20 Mar. 2003, "U.S. Launches Cruise Missiles at Saddam; Saddam Denounces Attack as 'Criminal'", http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/19/sprj.irq.main/ as did a number of American legal experts, including Marjorie Cohn, Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild,Jurist, Legal News and Research, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, 9 Nov 2006, Forum: Op-ed, "Donald Rumsfeld: The War Crimes Case", http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/11/donald-rumsfeld-war-crimes-case.php {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140529194929/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/11/donald-rumsfeld-war-crimes-case.php |date=29 May 2014 }} and former Attorney-General of the United States Ramsey Clark.I.P.O. Information Service, 29 Jan 2004, "Iraq War 2003: Question of War of Aggression, Letter from Mr. Ramsey Clark to the Secretary-General of the United Nations -- 29 January 2004", http://i-p-o.org/ipo-nr-iraq-clark-29jan04.htm

{{further|Iraq Resolution}}

File:Bush auth jbc.jpg, October 2, 2002.]]

With the support of large bipartisan majorities, the U.S. Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The resolution asserts the authorization by the Constitution of the United States and the United States Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq". The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq".

Before the invasion, the then Attorney General for England and Wales, Lord Goldsmith, advised that the war would be in breach of international law for six reasons, ranging from the lack of a second United Nations resolution to UN inspector Hans Blix's continuing search for weapons.{{cite news | url=http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1469235,00.html | title=Blair blow as secret war doubts revealed | access-date=2007-10-25 | date=2005-04-24 | work=The Guardian | location=London | first=Gaby | last=Hinsliff}} Ten days later, on 7 March 2003, as UK troops were massing in Kuwait, Lord Goldsmith changed his mind, saying:

I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force.... Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution.{{cite web|url=http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pdf/Iraq+Resolution+1441.pdf |title=Declassified opinion of the UK Attorney General on Iraq Resolution 1441 to the Prime Minister |access-date=2010-04-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050428194646/http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pdf/Iraq%2BResolution%2B1441.pdf |archive-date=2005-04-28 |url-status=dead }}

He concluded his revised analysis by saying that "regime change cannot be the objective of military action".

{{Main|Downing Street memo}}

On 1 May 2005, a [https://web.archive.org/web/20050617050615/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html related UK document] known as the Downing Street memo was apparently leaked to The Sunday Times. The memo, which details the minutes of a 26 July 2002 meeting, recorded the head of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), after his recent visit to Washington, expressing his view that, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It also quoted Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying that it was clear that Bush had "made up his mind" to take military action but that "the case was thin" and Attorney-General Goldsmith as warning that justifying the invasion on legal grounds would be difficult.

British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity but did dispute that it accurately stated the situation.

The minutes of the cabinet meetings where the legality of the Iraq war was discussed were subjected to a Freedom of Information request in 2007. The request was refused. On 19 February 2008, the Information Commissioner ordered the minutes to be disclosed in the public interest,{{cite web|url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50165372.pdf |title=MODEL DECISION NOTICE AND ADVICE] Version 3 |access-date=2010-04-19}} but the government appealed to the Information Tribunal. When the Tribunal upheld the order for disclosure in early 2009,{{cite web|url=http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i288/Cabinet%20Office%20v%20IC%20&%20C%20Lamb%20(EA-2008-0024,29)%20-%20Decision%2027-01-09.pdf |title=H- -V1 |access-date=2010-04-19}} Jack Straw (then Justice Minister) issued the first ever ministerial veto (Section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000) and prevented the release of the minutes.{{cite web|url=https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2009-02-24a.153.0 |title=Freedom of Information Act 2000: 24 Feb 2009: House of Commons debates |publisher=TheyWorkForYou.com |access-date=2010-04-19}}{{cite news|author=Richard Norton-Taylor |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/feb/25/cabinet-minutes-iraq-war |title=Why we went to war in Iraq remains a secret as Straw blocks the release of cabinet minutes | Politics |work=The Guardian |date= 2009-02-25|access-date=2010-04-19 | location=London}} On 6 July 2016, extracts from the minutes were disclosed by the Iraq Inquiry.[http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/244126/2003-03-13-cabinet-conclusions-extract.pdf][http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/233560/2003-03-17-cabinet-conclusions.pdf#search=Cabinet]

On 21 June 2005, in a minor criminal case, the German Federal Administrative Court decided not to convict a Major in the German Army of the crime of refusing duty that would advance the Iraq war. With regard to the Iraq War, the court found that it had "grave concerns in terms of public international law".Nikolaus Schultz [http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=684 Case Note – Was the war on Iraq Illegal? – The Judgment of the German Federal Administrative Court] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927042539/http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=684|date=2007-09-27}} of 21 June 2005 in the German Law Journal No. 1 (1 January 2006), citation from section "D. The Facts of the Matter and the Outcome of the Case" However, the court also did not clearly state that the war and the contributions to it by the German Federal Government were outright illegal.Nikolaus Schultz [http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=684 Case Note – Was the war on Iraq Illegal? – The Judgment of the German Federal Administrative Court] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927042539/http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=684 |date=2007-09-27 }} of 21 June 2005 in the German Law Journal No. 1 (1 January 2006), citation from section "D. Comments"

Nikolaus Schultz wrote of this decision: "The Court did not express an opinion as to whether the war on Iraq constituted an act of aggression in the first part of its judgement when dealing with the exceptions to the obligation of a German member of the Federal Armed Forces to obey orders. At a later stage in the written reasons, however, it jumped to the conclusion that a state that resorts to military force without justification and, therefore, violates the prohibition of the use of force provided for by Art. 2.4 of the Charter, at the same time commits an act of military aggression. The (non-binding) Definition of Aggression of the GA attached to UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 is broad enough to support this conclusion. However, it has to be recalled that the State Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) could not agree on a definition of the crime of aggression."[http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=684 Case Note – Was the war on Iraq Illegal? – The Judgment of the German Federal Administrative Court] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927042539/http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=684 |date=2007-09-27 }} of 21 June 2005 in the German Law Journal No. 1 (1 January 2006), citation from section "C. The Court's Reasoning"

He summarized: "These findings were watered down to an extent by the Court when it used the cautious proviso that the actions of the states involved only gave rise to grave concerns before arguing the respective issues at stake. By doing that, the Court shifted the burden to the individual soldiers and their decision of conscience whether to obey an order rather than reaching the conclusion that participating in a war violating rules of international law, and even constituting an act of aggression, as the court held, would be illegal and, therefore, justify insubordination."

Following intelligence from the UK and US, the Dutch government supported the operation of the multinational force in 2003. In January 2010, the 10-month Davids Commission inquiry published its final report. The Commission had been tasked with investigating Dutch government decision-making on political support for the war in Iraq in 2003 .{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8453305.stm |title= Dutch inquiry says Iraq war had no mandate |publisher=news.bbc.co.uk |date=2010-01-12 |access-date=2010-06-07}} The inquiry by the Dutch commission was the first ever independent legal assessment of the invasion decision. The Dutch commissioners included the former president of the Supreme Court, a former judge of the European Court of Justice, and two academic lawyers.

According to the report, the Dutch cabinet failed to fully inform the House of Representatives that the allies' military action against Iraq "had no sound mandate under international law" and that the United Kingdom was instrumental in influencing the Dutch decision to back the war.{{cite web|url=http://www.nrc.nl/international/Features/article2458273.ece/Report_answers_questions_on_Iraq |title= Report answers questions on Iraq - Did the British trick the Dutch after the invasion? Questions answered about the Iraq-report |publisher=Nrc.nl |access-date=2010-04-19}} It also emerged that the British government had refused to disclose a key document requested by the Dutch panel, a letter to Balkenende from Tony Blair, asking for the support. This letter was said to have been handed over in a "breach of diplomatic protocol" and therefore for Balkenende's eyes only.

In response, Balkenende stated that he had fully informed the House of Representatives about government support for the invasion and that Saddam Hussein's repeated refusal to respect UN resolutions and cooperate with UN weapons inspectors had justified the invasion.{{cite web|url=http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/balkenende-rejects-iraq-enquiry-criticism |title=Balkenende rejects Iraq enquiry criticism |publisher=Rnw.nl |date=2010-01-12 |access-date=2010-04-19}}{{cite news|first=Afua|last=Hirsch |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-war-illegal-dutch-tribunal |title=Iraq war was illegal, Dutch panel rules - Inquiry says conflict had no sound mandate in international law as it emerges UK denied key letter to seven-judge tribunal |publisher=Guardian |date= 2010-01-12|access-date=2010-04-19 | location=London}}{{cite news|first=Afua|last=Hirsch |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-invasion-violated-interational-law-dutch-inquiry-finds |title=Iraq invasion violated international law, Dutch inquiry finds - Investigation into the Netherlands' support for 2003 war finds military action was not justified under UN resolutions |publisher=Guardian |date= 2010-01-12|access-date=2010-04-19 | location=London}}

• At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA
• Command responsibility
• Criticism of the Iraq War
• Democide
• Human rights in post-invasion Iraq
• Human Rights Record of the United States
• Hussein Kamel al-Majid
• International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq
• Invasion of Iraq
• Iraq War misappropriations
• Jus ad bellum
• Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission
• Laws of war
• Legality of the Russian invasion of Ukraine
• List of Iraq War resisters
• List of United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq
• Movement to impeach George W. Bush
• Opposition to the Iraq War
• Protests against the Iraq War
• Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq
• Rationale for the Iraq War
• The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
• United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War
• United States and the International Criminal Court
• Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq
• War crimes committed by the United States
• War crimes
• War of aggression
• War on Terrorism

{{reflist|2}}

• [https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7634313 CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20080108221203/http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=14669 Children as "Collateral Damage" of the War in Iraq]
• [https://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/08/02/WarCrimes/ Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?]

{{Iraq War}}

Category:Legality of wars

Category:Iraq War