U.S. Invasion of Iraq Raises Many Legal Issues

The U.S. invasion of Iraq has raised many legal issues that this article will only spot. Both Iraq and the U.S. are states-parties to all four Geneva Conventions (GC) of 1949 and are bound as such. They are not members of the Additional Protocols, but many of those provisions are considered customary law. The Nuremburg Tribunal declared that the 1907 Hague Convention and the appended Regulations on the Laws and Customs of War on Land are customary international law and bind states. Iraq war has raised several issues not cover in this article: the legality of the widespread use by the coalition forces of cluster bombs; the legality of the use by the use of tear gas; whether friendly-fire can be punished; the decision by the U.S. on March 20 to confiscate nearly $1.5 billion in Iraqi Government assets frozen in the U.S., the concomitant request of the U.S. for other countries to comply with a U.S. request to turn over to a U.S.-controlled account Iraqi assets frozen in their countries; and whether, as a result of the success of the war, the U.N. sanctions against Iraq should be wholly or partly removed, and, if so, under what conditions. The first and perhaps most important issue is whether the U.S. invasion was legal under international law. The U.S. justifies the legality by stating that Security Council resolutions authorized th attack. In addition, the U.S. was justified in attacking by the doctrine of self-defense. Targeting Leadership and Party Headquarters; Misuse of Hospitals, Schools, and Emblems; Feigning Surrender; Destruction and Lotting of Art Museums; and Responsibility of U.S. for Problems During Occupation were other issues that were also addressed.