The decision by the US and UK governments to use military force against Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent occupation and administration of that State, has brought into sharp focus fundamental fault lines in international law. The decision to invade, the conduct of the war and occupation and the mechanisms used to administer the country all challenge the international legal community placing it at a crossroads. When can the use of force be justified? What are the limits of military operations? What strength does international criminal law possess in the face of such interventions? How effective is the international regime of human rights in these circumstances? What role does domestic law have to play? How the law now responds and develops in the light of these matters will be of fundamental global importance for the 21st century and an issue of considerable political and legal concern. This book explores this legal territory by examining a number of issues fundamental to the future direction of international law in the War's aftermath. Consideration is also given to the impact on UK law. Both practical and academic perspectives are taken in order to scrutinise key questions and consider the possible trajectories that international law might now follow.

The decision by the US and UK governments to use military force against Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent occupation and administration of that State, has brought into sharp focus fundamental fault lines in international law. The decision to invade, the conduct of the war and occupation and the mechanisms used to administer the country all challenge the international legal community placing it at a crossroads. When can the use of force be justified? What are the limits of military operations? What strength does international criminal law possess in the face of such interventions? How effective is the international regime of human rights in these circumstances? What role does domestic law have to play? How the law now responds and develops in the light of these matters will be of fundamental global importance for the 21st century and an issue of considerable political and legal concern. This book explores this legal territory by examining a number of issues fundamental to the future direction of international law in the War's aftermath. Consideration is also given to the impact on UK law. Both practical and academic perspectives are taken in order to scrutinise key questions and consider the possible trajectories that international law might now follow.

After the Iraq War: The Future of the UN and International Law opens up a powerful and important debate on the future of world order. The military occupation of Iraq by the United States and their allies in Spring 2003 has confronted the United Nations with new and fundamental questions concerning its authority, its prestige, its working methods, its efficiency even the justification of its existence in the future. Besides the United Nations, the book concerns the general international law as such, especially the rules regarding the maintenance of peace and the prohibition of the use of force, which are also the central provisions of the United Nations Charter and the fundamental norms of customary international law. Contemporary general international law is inextricably linked to the fate of the United Nations. The purpose of this volume is to reappraise the findings on the current situation and to give a differentiated picture of the international debate on the future world order, and its direction.

One million people in the UK alone demonstrated against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A crucial element of the opposition to the war was the lack of a clear legal basis. This is the first book to analyze the lawfulness of the use of force against Iraq on the basis of formerly classified material made public by the official UK inquiry into the war.

“Professor Byers’s book goes to the heart of some of the most bitterly contested recent controversies about the International Rule of Law.” —Chris Patten, Chancellor of Oxford University International law governing the use of military force has been the subject of intense public debate. Under what conditions is it appropriate, or necessary, for a country to use force when diplomacy has failed? Michael Byers, a widely known world expert on international law, weighs these issues in War Law. Byers examines the history of armed conflict and international law through a series of case studies of past conflicts, ranging from the 1837 Caroline Incident to the abuse of detainees by US forces at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Byers explores the legal controversies that surrounded the 1999 and 2001 interventions in Kosovo and Afghanistan and the 2003 war in Iraq; the development of international humanitarian law from the 1859 Battle of Solferino to the present; and the role of war crimes tribunals and the International Criminal Court. He also considers the unique influence of the United States in the evolution of this extremely controversial area of international law. War Law is neither a textbook nor a treatise, but a fascinating account of a highly controversial topic that is necessary reading for fans of military history and general readers alike. “Should be read, and pondered, by those who are seriously concerned with the legacy we will leave to future generations.” —Noam Chomsky

On February 15, 2003, millions of people around the world demonstrated against the war that the United States, the United Kingdom, and their allies were planning to wage in Iraq. Despite this being the largest protest in the history of humankind, the war on Iraq began the next month. That year, the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) emerged from the global antiwar movement that had mobilized against the invasion and subsequent occupation. Like the earlier tribunal on Vietnam convened by Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre, the WTI sought to document—and provide grounds for adjudicating—war crimes committed by the United States, the United Kingdom, and their allied forces during the Iraq war. For the Love of Humanity builds on two years of transnational fieldwork within the decentralized network of antiwar activists who constituted the WTI in some twenty cities around the world. Ayça Çubukçu illuminates the tribunal up close, both as an ethnographer and a sympathetic participant. In the process, she situates debates among WTI activists—a group encompassing scholars, lawyers, students, translators, writers, teachers, and more—alongside key jurists, theorists, and critics of global democracy. WTI activists confronted many dilemmas as they conducted their political arguments and actions, often facing interpretations of human rights and international law that, unlike their own, were not grounded in anti-imperialism. Çubukçu approaches this conflict by broadening her lens, incorporating insights into how Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Iraqi High Tribunal grappled with the realities of Iraq's occupation. Through critical analysis of the global debate surrounding one of the early twenty-first century's most significant world events, For the Love of Humanity addresses the challenges of forging global solidarity against imperialism and makes a case for reevaluating the relationships between law and violence, empire and human rights, and cosmopolitan authority and political autonomy.

Does the United States have the right to defend itself by striking first, or must it wait until an attack is in progress? Is the Bush Doctrine of aggressive preventive action a justified and legal recourse against threats posed by terrorists and rogue states? Tackling one of the most controversial policy issues of the post-September 11 world, Michael Doyle argues that neither the Bush Doctrine nor customary international law is capable of adequately responding to the pressing security threats of our times. In Striking First, Doyle shows how the Bush Doctrine has consistently disregarded a vital distinction in international law between acts of preemption in the face of imminent threats and those of prevention in the face of the growing offensive capability of an enemy. Taking a close look at the Iraq war, the 1998 attack against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, among other conflicts, he contends that international law must rely more completely on United Nations Charter procedures and develop clearer standards for dealing with lethal but not immediate threats. After explaining how the UN can again play an important role in enforcing international law and strengthening international guidelines for responding to threats, he describes the rare circumstances when unilateral action is indeed necessary. Based on the 2006 Tanner Lectures at Princeton University, Striking First includes responses by distinguished political theorists Richard Tuck and Jeffrey McMahan and international law scholar Harold Koh, yielding a lively debate that will redefine how--and for what reasons--tomorrow's wars are fought.