Law and the use of force after Iraq
Hard cases make notoriously bad law, and they also make a bad basis for asserting that there is no law. Ihe US-led war against Iraq, and disagreements about it in the UN Security Council, do not mean that the twentieth-century attempts to subject the use of force to the rule of law have collapsed. I...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Survival |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | UnknownFormat |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2003
|
| Schlagworte: |
Vereinte Nationen
> Wirkung
> Auswirkung
> Internationales Recht
> Friedensrecht
> Irakkrieg 2003
> UNO/Vereinte Nationen/United Nations Organization
> Völkerrecht
> Gewalt
> Gewaltlosigkeit
> Angriffskrieg
> Verteidigungskrieg
> Iraq War 2003
> UN/United Nations
> international law
> violence
> non-violence
> war of aggression
> defensive war
> Erde
|
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Tag hinzufügen | Zusammenfassung: | Hard cases make notoriously bad law, and they also make a bad basis for asserting that there is no law. Ihe US-led war against Iraq, and disagreements about it in the UN Security Council, do not mean that the twentieth-century attempts to subject the use of force to the rule of law have collapsed. In the Iraq crisis, the US and UK asserted a strong legal basis for their resort to force, namely, existing Security Council resolutions. More generally, both within the Security Council and beyond, a wide variety of grounds for intervention in states has been recognised in international practice. However, attempts to develop doctrines of pre-emption and humanitarian intervention have not commanded broad support, since most states still value the non-intervention norm. Disagreements between states on the legitimacy of certain uses of force remain serious and need to be addressed. (Survival / SWP) |
|---|---|
| Beschreibung: | Lit.Hinw. |
| ISSN: | 0039-6338 |