The second Gulf War of 2003 : its origins, legality and aftermath

This thesis examines the question of the legality of the Second Gulf War and its aftermath. The objective is to determine whether the US/UK invasion of Iraq without UN mandate was justified under the UN Charter and customary international law. To obtain an accurate picture of the conflict and determine its legality, it analyses the historical background, particularly the main events and underlying causes. The main question discussed is whether the US military action, supported by its allies, was legitimate in terms of customary international law and the UN Charter. In examining this issue, the following questions are considered: Could the US claim the right of self-defence to pre-empt the Iraqi threat? Did Iraq represent an imminent threat to them or any other nation? Did UNSC Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 give the coalition explicit or implicit authority to use force and was there no need for a further resolution? The study examines the main legal arguments employed to justify the use of force, particularly pre-emptive self-defence and UNSC Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441, to determine whether they are sound enough to have justified military action. The thesis argues that the invasion was illegal and in violation of the UN Charter and customary international law as well as related UNSC resolutions and represented a serious threat to international peace and security. It argues that Iraq did not represent an imminent or potential threat to the US, UK or any other country in the region and therefore they had no warrant to use force in the exercise of the right of self-defence. The political, humanitarian and legal consequences of this war with its ramifications even to the present time are examined. It is hoped that the thesis contributes to the development of the UN and customary international law in the field of maintaining international peace and security.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo