Ethics And Intervention In Iraq
90T 01 041777 (ds)
3/2/04
1:10 pm
Page 131
© 2004 Journal of Peace Research, vol. 41, no. 2, 2004, pp. 131–147
Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com
DOI: 10.1177/0022343304041777 ISSN 0022-3433
Ethics and Intervention: The ‘Humanitarian
Exception’ and the Problem of Abuse in the Case of Iraq*
ALEX J. BELL AMY
School of Political Science and International Studies, University of
Queensland
This article investigates the ethics of intervention and explores the decision to invade Iraq. It begins by arguing that while positive international law provides an important framework for understanding and debating the legitimacy of war, it does not cover the full spectrum of moral …show more content…
The justification continues by pointing out that all subsequent resolutions on Iraqi disarmament (for instance, Resolutions 1154, 2
March 1998; and 1158, 25 March 1998) were passed under Chapter VII of the
Charter and identified Iraqi non-compliance as constituting a threat to international peace and security. Resolution 1441 found Iraq to be in material breach of Resolution 687 and warned of ‘serious consequences’ if it did not comply. Thus, the British and Australian governments argued, the war with Iraq was legal because it was authorized by the
Security Council.
By contrast, the US administration developed two legal arguments to justify the war.
First, they agreed with the British and Australian argument that a revived Resolution
678 provided enough justification for war.
Second, however, Bush emphasized the administration’s belief that the war with Iraq was a continuation of the ‘war against terror’ and implicitly suggested that a legal argument based on self-defence, which was used with some success to justify Operation
Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, provided enough justification for the use of …show more content…
They argue that a precedent was set after the Gulf War by Operation
Provide Comfort in northern Iraq (Wheeler,
2000). This operation was implicitly sanctioned by UN Security Council Resolution
688, which itself marked a revolutionary moment in international society because it implied that human suffering alone could constitute a threat to international peace and security and hence warrant a collective armed intervention by the society of states.9
The argument follows that the subsequent interventions in Bosnia, Somalia and
Rwanda reinforced this new norm. Sovereignty, Tony Blair once famously opined, is not a veil that human rights abusers can hide behind (Blair, 1999). Instead, ‘state authorities are responsible for the functions of protecting the safety and lives of [their] citizens’
(ICISS, 2001: 13). Thus, the cosmopolitanist argument seemingly endorsed by
Bush, Blair and Howard holds that extreme
9 I am not necessarily endorsing this interpretation of the
Resolution. On the background to and importance of Resolution 688, see Chopra & Weiss (1992).
volume 41 / number 2 / march 2004
cases of human suffering create a legitimate moral exception to the rule of nonintervention rooted in natural
3/2/04
1:10 pm
Page 131
© 2004 Journal of Peace Research, vol. 41, no. 2, 2004, pp. 131–147
Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com
DOI: 10.1177/0022343304041777 ISSN 0022-3433
Ethics and Intervention: The ‘Humanitarian
Exception’ and the Problem of Abuse in the Case of Iraq*
ALEX J. BELL AMY
School of Political Science and International Studies, University of
Queensland
This article investigates the ethics of intervention and explores the decision to invade Iraq. It begins by arguing that while positive international law provides an important framework for understanding and debating the legitimacy of war, it does not cover the full spectrum of moral …show more content…
The justification continues by pointing out that all subsequent resolutions on Iraqi disarmament (for instance, Resolutions 1154, 2
March 1998; and 1158, 25 March 1998) were passed under Chapter VII of the
Charter and identified Iraqi non-compliance as constituting a threat to international peace and security. Resolution 1441 found Iraq to be in material breach of Resolution 687 and warned of ‘serious consequences’ if it did not comply. Thus, the British and Australian governments argued, the war with Iraq was legal because it was authorized by the
Security Council.
By contrast, the US administration developed two legal arguments to justify the war.
First, they agreed with the British and Australian argument that a revived Resolution
678 provided enough justification for war.
Second, however, Bush emphasized the administration’s belief that the war with Iraq was a continuation of the ‘war against terror’ and implicitly suggested that a legal argument based on self-defence, which was used with some success to justify Operation
Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, provided enough justification for the use of …show more content…
They argue that a precedent was set after the Gulf War by Operation
Provide Comfort in northern Iraq (Wheeler,
2000). This operation was implicitly sanctioned by UN Security Council Resolution
688, which itself marked a revolutionary moment in international society because it implied that human suffering alone could constitute a threat to international peace and security and hence warrant a collective armed intervention by the society of states.9
The argument follows that the subsequent interventions in Bosnia, Somalia and
Rwanda reinforced this new norm. Sovereignty, Tony Blair once famously opined, is not a veil that human rights abusers can hide behind (Blair, 1999). Instead, ‘state authorities are responsible for the functions of protecting the safety and lives of [their] citizens’
(ICISS, 2001: 13). Thus, the cosmopolitanist argument seemingly endorsed by
Bush, Blair and Howard holds that extreme
9 I am not necessarily endorsing this interpretation of the
Resolution. On the background to and importance of Resolution 688, see Chopra & Weiss (1992).
volume 41 / number 2 / march 2004
cases of human suffering create a legitimate moral exception to the rule of nonintervention rooted in natural