American Society of International Law The American Journal of International Law

International Law and the War in Iraq
Author(s): John Yoo

Source: The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 97, No. 3 (Jul., 2003), pp. 563-576
Published by: American Society of International Law
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3109841
Accessed: 18-05-2016 08:50 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Society of International Law is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The American Journal of International Law
This content downloaded from 132.77.150.148 on Wed, 18 May 2016 08:50:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
2003] AGORA: FUTURE IMPLICATIONS OF THE IRAQ CONFLICT 563
Council decision that Iraq had failed to comply; nor did they do so before commencing
military operations. The language of Resolution 1441 tracked the language of Resolution
678, and the resolution operated in the same way to authorize coalition forces to bring Iraq
into compliance with its obligations.2
What does all this tell us about Iraq and the preemptive use of force? Was Operation Iraqi
Freedom an example of preemptive use of force? Viewed as the final episode in a conflict
initiated more than a dozen years earlier by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, it may not seem so.
However, in the context of the Security Council's resolutions, preemption of Iraq's posses-
sion and use of weapons of mass destruction was a principal objective of the coalition forces.
A central consideration, at least from the U.S. point of view, was the risk embodied in allowing
the Iraqi regime to defy the international community by pursuing weapons of mass destruc-
tion. But do U.S. actions show a disregard for international law? The answer here is clearly
no. Both the United States and the international community had a firm basis for using
preemptive force in the face of the past actions by Iraq and the threat that it posed, as seen
over a protracted period of time. Preemptive use of force is certainly lawful where, as here,
it represents an episode in an ongoing broader conflict initiated-without question-by the
opponent and where, as here, it is consistent with the resolutions of the Security Council.
WILLIAM H. TAFT IV AND TODD F. BUCHWALD*
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE WAR IN IRAQ
In his speech before the United Nations (UN) in September 2002, President George W.
Bush characterized the possible use of force against Iraq as necessary to enforce existing
Security Council resolutions and to eliminate a dangerous threat to international peace and
security.' The Security Council responded by adopting Resolution 1441, which found Iraq to
be in material breach of previous Security Council resolutions and threatened serious conse-
quences for further intransigence.2 When Iraq refused to fully comply with these resolutions,
the United States led an ad hoc "coalition of the willing" that invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003,
quickly defeated Iraq's armed forces, and ended the regime of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath
party. On May 1, 2003, President Bush announced that major combat operations in Iraq had
ended. At the time of this writing, the United States has assumed the position of an occupy-
ing power that is responsible for rebuilding Iraq, as recognized by the Security Council in
Resolution 1483.
Despite these actions, other leading nations (primarily France, Germany, and Russia) and
many international scholars have argued that international law did notjustify the war in Iraq.
The first part of this paper will explain why their view failed to properly read existing Security
Council resolutions to authorize the use of force. Even putting the United Nations to one
side, the war was furtherjustified as an exercise of self-defense. Under basic notions of cus-
tomary international law, properly understood, the United States could have attacked Iraq
23 For its part, the United States made clear that it would have preferred the Council to adopt a second reso-
lution. Its view was that such a resolution would have operated as an important demonstration of resolve by the
international community to increase the pressure on Iraq and, ultimately, to reduce the likelihood that resort to
force would be necessary. While the Council's inability to come together for such a resolution may have misled
Iraq into believing it could wait out the process in NewYork, the absence of Council action in no way diminished
the effect of what the Council had previously authorized.
* Mr. Taft is the Legal Adviser of the United States Department of State; Mr. Buchwald is the Assistant Legal
Adviser for Political-Military Affairs of the United States Department of State.
'George W. Bush, UN General Assembly in NewYork City Address (Sept. 12,2002), 38 WEEKLYCOMP. PRES. DOC.
1529 (Sept 16,2002), availble at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html> [here-
inafter Bush UN Address].
2 SC Res. 1441 (Nov. 8, 2002).
564 THE AMERICANJOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 97:563
even without Security Council authorization. The second part of this paper will discuss why
the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime was justified as an exercise of anticipatory self-
defense.
This paper is divided into three sections. Part I lays out the background to the conflict
with Iraq. Part II discusses the UN Security Council's authorization for the use of military
force against Iraq. Part III explains why the United States could use force in anticipatory self-
defense. I conclude by sketching out the implications of these arguments for a future threat-
ened by weapons of mass destruction (WMD), rogue nations, and terrorism.
I. BACKGROUND
Examination of the factual and legal setting leading up to the Iraq war will show that
sufficient legal authority existed for the 2003 conflict with Iraq. On August 2, 1990, Iraq
invaded Kuwait. The next day, the Security Council adopted Resolution 660, the first of many
resolutions to condemn Iraq's actions and demand withdrawal from Kuwait.3 After diplomacy
failed, the Security Council adopted Resolution 678, which gave Iraq untilJanuary 15, 1991,
to implement Resolution 660 fully.4 Paragraph 2 of Resolution 678 authorizes member states
"to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subse-
quent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."5 Iraq
refused to withdraw from Kuwait before the January 15th deadline, and Operation Desert
Storm began the next day. Iraq was expelled from Kuwait on February 27, 1991.
On April 3,1991, the Security Council adopted Resolution 687, which established the con-
ditions for a formal cease-fire suspending hostilities in the Persian Gulf. Resolution 687 required
Iraq to: (1) destroy its chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles and agree to on-
site inspections; (2) not use, develop, construct, or acquire such WMD and their delivery sys-
tems; (3) not acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or com-
ponents; and (4) accept on-site inspection and destroy nuclear-related weapons or materials.6
To carry out the inspections, the resolution established a United Nations Special Commission
(UNSCOM) to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was
to take custody of all of Iraq's nuclear-weapons materials. On April 6, 1991, Iraq officially
accepted the terms, and a formal cease-fire went into effect between Iraq, Kuwait, and the
nations that had cooperated with Kuwait, including the United States.7
3 See SC Res. 660 (Aug. 2,1990). See also SC Res. 661 (Aug. 6,1990) (establishing oil embargo and sanctions regime
against Iraq and Kuwait); SC Res. 662 (Aug. 9,1990) (deciding that Iraq's annexation of Kuwait has no legal validity);
SC Res. 664 (Aug., 18, 1990) (demanding that Iraq permit and facilitate the immediate departure from Kuwait of
third-party nationals); SC Res. 665 (Aug. 25, 1990) (calling upon allied nations to use necessary measures to enforce
embargo established in SC Res.661); SC Res. 666 (Sept. 13,1990) (implementing sanctions regime and the humani-
tarian needs exception); SC Res. 667 (Sept 16,1990) (demanding that Iraq immediately protect safety of diplomatic
and consular personnel and premises in Kuwait); SC Res. 669 (Sept. 24,1990) (relating toJordan's request for relief
from effects of implementing oil embargo and sanctions regime); SC Res. 670 (Sept. 25,1990) (regulating aircraft
transporting cargo to Iraq or Kuwait and reaffirming Iraq's liability for grave breaches of the Geneva Convention
Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time ofWar); SC Res. 674 (Oct. 29,1990) (condemning Iraqi mis-
treatment of Kuwaiti and third-party nationals and inviting collection of materials to bring charges against Iraq for
its violations of international law); SC Res. 677 (Nov. 28, 1990) (condemning Iraqi attempts to destroy demographic
composition of Kuwait and Kuwaiti civil records).
4 SC Res. 678 (Nov. 29, 1990).
5 Id.
6 SC Res. 687 (Apr. 3, 1991).

7 Toward the end of the Gulf war, Iraq brutally suppressed Kurdish insurrections in Iraqi Kurdistan, causing the
flight of hundreds of thousands of civilians to Iran and Turkey. In response, the Security Council adopted SC Res.
688 (Apr. 5, 1991), which condemned "the repression of the Iraqi civilian population" and found that the conse-
quences of such repression caused "a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and... cross-
border incursions" that threatened international peace and security in the region. To aid the refugees who had
fled northern Iraq, the coalition established a no-fly zone prohibiting Iraqi military aircraft from flying north of
the 36th parallel. Due to further repression of the civilian population in 1992, British, French and U.S. coalition
forces established an additional no-fly zone south of the 32nd parallel.
From the beginning, Iraq resisted UNSCOM's efforts to perform its mandate. On August 15,
1991, little more than four months after the adoption of Resolution 687, the Security Council
"condemn [ed]" Iraq's "serious violation" of a number of its obligations regarding the destruc-
tion and dismantling of its WMD program and of its agreement to cooperate with UNSCOM
and the IAEA and stated that the violation "constitutes a material breach of the relevant pro-
visions of [Resolution 687] which established a cease-fire and provided the conditions essen-
tial to the restoration of peace and security in the region."8 Iraq's intransigence continued
for years. InJune of 1996, the Security Council "deplored" the refusal of Iraq to allow access
to UNSCOM inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of its resolutions.9 InJune 1997, the Council
again "condemn [ed] repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to provide access" to UNSCOM in-
spectors as a "clear and flagrant" violation of its resolutions and demanded full, immediate,
and unconditional compliance.'1 In the fall of 1997, Resolution 1137 "condemn [ed] ... the
continued violations by Iraq of its obligations under the relevant resolutions to cooperate
fully and unconditionally with [UNSCOM]," found that the situation continued to constitute
a threat to international peace and security, and warned that "serious consequences" would
result if Iraq failed to comply with its international obligations.1
In February 1998, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan secured a memorandum of under-
standing confirming Iraq's acceptance of all relevant Security Council resolutions and its reaf-
firmation to cooperate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA. Nonetheless, Iraq formally halted
all cooperation with UNSCOM at the end of October. The Security Council responded by
condemning Iraq's decision as a "flagrant violation of resolution 687... and other relevant
resolutions."'2 On December 15, UNSCOM reported that it could not complete its mandate
due to Iraq's obstructionism. The next day, the United States and Britain launched a seventy-
hour missile and aircraft bombing campaign against approximately one hundred targets in
Iraq. For the next four years, Iraq refused to permit UN inspections. In December 1999, the
Security Council decided to disband UNSCOM and replace it with the United Nations Moni-
toring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC).13
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and the United States' military response in
Afghanistan against the Qaeda terrorist organization and the Taliban militia that harbored
it, led to a sharper focus on the Iraq problem.l4 The attacks on the World Trade Center and
the Pentagon, carried out byAl Qaeda operatives trained and led from their bases in Afghan-
istan, demonstrated the threat posed by terrorists who could seek safe haven in rogue nations
with potential access to WMD. As President Bush said in hisJanuary 2002 State of the Union
address:
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten
the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a
grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the
means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the
United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.'5
8 SC Res. 707 (Aug. 15, 1991).

9 SC Res. 1060 (June 12, 1996).
'0 SC Res. 1115 (June 21, 1997).
n SC Res. 1137 (Nov. 12, 1997).
12 SC Res. 1205 (Nov. 5, 1998).
13 SC Res. 1284 (Dec. 17, 1999).
14 I have discussed the domestic legal authority for the war in Afghanistan elsewhere. See RobertJ. Delahunty &
John C.Yoo, The President's ConstitutionalAuthority to Conduct Military Operations Against Terrorist Organizations and
the Nations that Harbor or Support Them, 25 HARV.J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 487 (2002).
15 George W. Bush, State of the Union Address (Jan. 29, 2002), 38 WEEKLYCOMP. PRES. DOC. 125, 135 (Feb. 4,
2002), available at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/iraq/20020129-1 .html>.
On September 12, 2002, President Bush challenged the United Nations to address the
threat posed by Iraq as highlighted by its continuing defiance of the Security Council.16 On
November 8, the Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1441 to address "the
threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security."17 The resolu-
tion "deplor[es]" the absence of international inspections in Iraq since December 1998 and
Iraq's continued failure to renounce international terrorism and cease the repression of its
civilian population, and gives Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obliga-
tions under relevant resolutions of the Council."'8 It reminded Iraq that the Security Council
has repeatedly warned that "serious consequences" would result from the continued violation
of its obligations.19
Although Iraq responded to the resolution by permitting the resumption of inspections,
it never took advantage of its final opportunity to comply with its international obligations.
Iraq submitted a declaration on December 7, 2002, but the declaration was incomplete, inac-
curate, and composed mostly of recycled information. Iraq's declaration clearly failed to address
any of the outstanding disarmament questions that previous disarmament inspectors had
publicly documented. The reports submitted by UNMOVIC to the Council confirmed these
shortcomings.2 Iraq's submission of a declaration that did not comply with Resolution 1441
was a further material breach of its obligations. As President Bush stated on March 6, 2003,
Iraq continued to produce missiles thatviolate the restrictions in Resolution 687 and to hide
biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by international inspectors.21 No permanent
member of the UN Security Council claimed that Iraq had lived up to its obligations in Reso-
lution 1441. On February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered a comprehensive
presentation to the Security Council demonstrating Iraq's ongoing WMD efforts and their
concealment from UN inspectors.22 As Dr. Blix indicated to the Security Council onJanuary 27,
2003, Iraq had not come "to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which
was demanded of it."23
The conclusion is inescapable that at the time of the outbreak of the 2003 conflict, Iraq had
decided to refuse to comply with its disarmament obligations. This placed Iraq in material
breach of Resolution 1441 as well as Resolution 687. At the time of this writing, coalition
forces in Iraq continue to search for WMD sites; while no weapons have yet been discovered,
16 Bush UN Address, supra note 1.

17 See SC Res. 1441, supra note 2, at 1.
I8 d. at3.
9 Id. at 5.
20 On February 28, 2003, UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix stated that the declaration contained "little
new significant information... relating to proscribed weapons systems." Annex of the Twelfth Quarterly Report
of the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in Accor-
dance with Paragraph 12 of Security Council Resolution 1284, para. 7, available at<http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/
documents/2003-232.pdf>. OnJanuary 27, 2003, Dr. Blix stated that the Iraqi declaration did not contain "any new
evidence that would eliminate" the "many open disarmament issues." Update on Inspection to the UN Security
Council (Jan. 27, 2003), at 3. On March 7, 2003, Dr. Blix repeated his conclusion that, "It was a disappointment that
Iraq's declaration of 7 December did not bring new documentary evidence." Oral Introduction of the Twelfth
Quarterly Report of UNMOVIC, at 2.
21 Iraq failed to provide access to all officials for interview by inspectors; intimidated witnesses with threats; under-
took massive efforts to deceive and defeat inspectors, including cleanup and transshipment activities at nearly thirty
sites; failed to provide numerous documents requested by UNMOVIC; failed to list any WMD personnel beyond
a period ending in 1991 or to include many of those identified previously by UNSCOM; and failed to account for
seventeen empty chemical warheads subsequently discovered by weapons inspectors, as well as over 2000 pages of
Iraqi documents regarding past uranium enrichment programs. The Bush administration's more detailed description
of Iraq's refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions can be found in 149 CONG. REC. H1957-60
(daily ed. Mar. 19, 2003) (Report in Connection with Presidential Determination Under Public Law 107-243).
22 U.S. Secretary ofState ColinPowellAddresses U.N. Security Council(Feb. 5, 2003), availableat<http://www.whitehouse.
gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.htm>.
23 The Security Council: 27 January 2003: an Update on Inspection (as delivered) by Executive Chairman of
UNMOVIC Dr. Hans Blix, available at <http://www.unmovic.org>.
it may take months if not years to learn the fate of Iraq's WMD stockpile. It has become
clearer since the war that Saddam Hussein had allowedAl Qaeda-linked terrorists to operate
from Iraq. Nonetheless, these ex post developments do not directly bear on thejustification
for the use of force ex ante. What is important forjus ad bellum purposes is what the United
States and its allies reasonably understood the facts to be at the start of hostilities, not what
turned up afterwards.
II. UN SECURITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ
In light of this background, two independent sources of law provided the United States
and its allies with authority to use force in Iraq: UN Security Council resolutions and the right
to self-defense. Resolution 678 authorized member states "to use all necessary means to uphold
and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore
international peace and security in the area."24 One of the most significant "subsequent rele-
vant resolutions" was Resolution 687. Pursuant to Resolution 678, the United States could
use force not only to enforce Resolution 687's cease-fire, but also to restore "international
peace and security" to the region. In Resolution 1441, the Security Council unanimously found
that Iraq was in material breach of these earlier resolutions and that its continuing development
of WMD programs, its support for terrorism, and its repression of the civilian population pre-
sented an ongoing threat to international peace and security.
These findings triggered Resolution 678's authorization to use force in Iraq. Suspending
the cease-fire and resuming hostilities with Iraq was an appropriate response to Iraq's material
breaches of Resolution 687. Over the years, Iraq repeatedly refused to respond to diplomatic
overtures and other nonmilitary attempts to force compliance with its obligations to disarm
and to permit full UN inspections of its WMD program. Military force was necessary to obtain
Iraqi compliance with the terms of the cease-fire and to restore international peace and secu-
rity to the region.
Some have argued, however, that, Resolution 678's authorization had expired. Represen-
tatives from France, Germany, and Russia, for example, seemed to take the position that because
the current members of the Security Council would not agree to the use of force in the spring
of 2003, the 1991 resolution's broad authorization was somehow extinguished. That view is
simply wrong as a matter of UN practice and as a matter of law. The UN Security Council has
not readily authorized the use of force in the past (indeed, it appears to have done so only in
the context of seven conflicts), nor has it rescinded those decisions lightly. When the Security
Council has taken the serious step of ending its authorization to use force, it has only done
so in one of two ways: either by expressly terminating the prior authorization or by setting an
up-front time limit on the authorization.25 With regard to Bosnia, for example, the Security
Council ended the legal authority for the use of force by expressly terminating the previous
authorization in a separate resolution, while in Somalia, the Security Council explicitly estab-
lished a sunset date when it extended the authorization.26 In fact, when the Security Council
has wanted to reserve for itself whether the conditions for termination of its authorization
have been met rather than leave the matter to the member states, it has explicitly done so.27
24 See SC Res. 678, supra note 4, para. 2.

25 See, e.g., SC Res. 1031 (Dec. 15,1995), at3 (Bosnia) (deciding that "the authority to take certain measures con-
ferred upon States by [various UN Security Council resolutions] shall be terminated"); SC Res. 954 (Nov. 4,1994),
at 3 (extending the mandate for the U.N. Mission in Somalia (UNOSOM II) for a "final period" until March 31,1995);
SC Res. 929 (June 22, 1994), at 2 (Rwanda) (specifying that "the mission of Member States cooperating with the
Secretary-General will be limited to a period of two months following the adoption of the present resolution," if
not earlier).
26 See, e.g., SC Res. 1031, supra note 25; SC Res. 954, supra note 25.
27 See SC Res. 940 (July 31, 1994) (Haiti) (deciding "that the multinational force will terminate its mission ... when
a secure and stable environment has been established... [as determined] by the Security Council, taking into account
recommendations from the Member States of the multinational force").
Security Council practice has been consistent on this point over a substantial period of time.
Resolution 678, by contrast, contains no self-imposed time limit, and none of the resolutions
relating to Iraq, including Resolution 1441, explicitly terminated the resolution's endorsement
of the use of force. Unless the Security Council had clearly stated, using the same language
that it has in the past, that it has terminated Resolution 678's authorization for the use of
force, any such authorization continued.
In fact, the view of France, Germany, and Russia directly undermines the idea that UN
Security Council enactments are law at all. In 1991, the members of the Security Council unan-
imously agreed to authorize the use of force against Iraq, and reduced that agreement into
the written text of Resolution 678. That text has not been subsequently changed, and the con-
ditions for its authorization continued. If the current members of the Security Council dis-
agreed with Resolution 678, they could have repealed it. To argue that Resolution 678's autho-
rization had somehow dissipated, despite its clear text, simply because some of the current
members of the Council no longer agreed with it treats Council resolutions as if they merely
recorded temporary diplomatic agreement rather than enacted enduring legal texts. The
French, German, and Russian view considers Security Council resolutions to be ad hoc exec-
utive edicts, rather than legislative acts-a result that would cause considerable uncertainty
about their legal force and when they expire.
Some nations attempted to sidestep the inevitable conclusion to this argument by claim-
ing that Resolution 1441 itself somehow eclipsed Resolution 678's authorization to use
force. Resolution 1441, however, twice "[r] ecall[ed]" Resolution 678 and explicitly restated that
Resolution 678 referred to the ability of member states "to use all necessary means to uphold
and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore
international peace and security in the area."28 In fact, rather than negate earlier
authorizations, Resolution 1441 instead triggered them. Resolution 1441 " [d] ecides" that Iraq
"has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions," in
particular the obligations in Resolution 687 regarding Iraq's WMD program.29 In addition,
the resolution specifies that any false statements or omissions with respect to Iraq's WMD
program "shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."30 The resolution
also reminds Iraq that the Security Council has repeatedly warned that "serious conse-
quences" will result from the continued violation of its obligations.3s No member of the
Security Council found that Iraq had been in compliance with Resolution 1441, Resolution
678, or Resolution 687.
Resolution 1441's finding that Iraq was in material breach allowed the United States and
its allies to terminate the cease-fire created by Resolution 687 and resume the use of force as
authorized by Resolution 678. In the multilateral context, it is well-established that a mate-
rial breach of a treaty by one of the parties entities a party "specially affected" by the breach
to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part vis-a-vis the defaulting state.32 Even
if a state party were not "specially affected," however, a material breach that "radically changes"
the position of the parties also permits complete or partial suspension.33 Resolution 687 ex-
plicitly established "a formal cease-fire ... between Iraq and Kuwait, and the [UN] Member
States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990)."34 The state parties
to the cease-fire agreement were Iraq, Kuwait, the United States, and the other members

29 Id., para. 1.
30 Id., para. 4.
31 d., para. 13.
32 SeeVienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 60(2) (b), openedfor signatureMay 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331
[hereinafter "Vienna Convention"].
33 See id., Art. 60(2) (c).
of the coalition in the Gulf war but not the United Nations itself. During the decade after
the end of the first Gulf war, Iraq committed numerous material breaches of the cease-fire,
in particular by continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction.35 Iraq's material breaches
of the cease-fire entitled the United States, as a party to the cease-fire, unilaterally to sus-
pend its operation. Under accepted principles of international law, the United States did not
need the concurrence of the other parties.36 Once the cease-fire was suspended, the United
States could rely on Resolution 678 to use force against Iraq to implement Resolution 687
and to restore international peace and security to the area.37
The March 2003 attack was alsojustified under the law governing armistices. Resolution 687
was basically an armistice-unlike a peace treaty, it did not terminate the state of war, but
merely "suspend [ed] military operations by mutual agreement between the belligerent parties."38
A cease-fire allows a party to a conflict to resume hostilities under certain conditions. Under
the Hague Regulations, " [a] ny serious violation of the armistice by one of the parties gives the
other party the right of denouncing it, and even, in cases of urgency, of recommencing hostil-
ities immediately."39 The missile strikes in 1993 and 1998 serve as clear examples of the sus-
pension of a cease-fire and a resumption of hostilities due to serious violations by Iraq.40 Because
the initial use of force in response to the invasion of Kuwait-Operation Desert Storm-was
authorized under Resolution 678, subsequent uses of force against Iraq in response to seri-
ous violations of the terms of the cease-fire established by Resolution 687 are authorized as
35 See, e.g., Bush UN Address, supra note 1. Immediately after the cease-fire, Iraq refused to cooperate with UNSCOM
and the IAEA. On August 15,1991, after the adoption of SC Res. 687, the Security Council stated that Iraq's "serious
violation" of its disarmament obligations "constitutes a material breach of the relevant provisions of [SC Res. 687]
which established a cease-fire and provided the conditions essential to the restoration of peace and security in the
region." SC Res. 707, supra note 8. Over the next two years, the President of the Security Council issued six differ-
ent statements reiterating that Iraq's refusal to cooperate with UNSCOM and the IAEA qualified as material breaches
of SC Res. 687. Seethe following: Note by the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/25970 (June 18, 1993);
UN Doc. S/25091 (Jan. 11, 1993); UN Doc. S/25081 (Jan. 8, 1993); UN Doc. S/24240 (July 6, 1992); UN Doc.
S/23663 (Feb. 28, 1992); UN Doc. S/23609 (Feb. 19, 1992).
3 See Ruth Wedgwood, The Enforcement of Security Council Resolution 687: The Threat ofForce Against Iraq's Weapons
of Mass Destruction, 92 AJIL 724, 726 (1998) [hereinafter "Wedgwood"]; cf. Vienna Convention, Art. 60, supra note 32
(one party may suspend a multilateral treaty with respect to itself).
37 SeeWedgwood, supra note 36, at 726 (Iraq's breach of the terms of the cease-fire in 1997-1998 "allowed the
United States to deem the cease-fire in suspension and to resume military operations to enforce its conditions").
38 Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention on the Law and Customs of War on Land, Oct. 18,1907, Art. 36,
36 Stat. 2277,2305 [hereinafter "Hague Regulations"]. See alsoYORAM DINSTEIN,WAR,AGGRESSIONAND SELF-DEFENCE
50 (3d ed. 2001 ) ("Alabelling of Resolution 687 as a 'permanent cease-fire' is a contradiction in terms: a cease-fire,
by definition, is a transition-period arrangement.") [hereinafter "Dinstein"].
39Hague Regulations, Art. 40, supranote 38; see also U.S. Army Field Manual 1493, available at<http://www.adtdl.
army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/Ch7.htm> (hostilities may be resumed only with "convincing proof of inten-
tional and serious violation of [the armistice's] terms by the other party"). The Hague Regulations do not contain
any explanation of what might qualify as "urgency," but the U.S. Army's Field Manual sheds some light on the ques-
tion. According to the Army Field Manual, warning must be given to the other side, unless "the delay incident to
formal denunciation and warning seems likely to give the violator a substantial advantage of any kind." Army Field
Manual 1 493; cf See also 2 L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW, A TREATISE: DISPUTES, WAR, AND NEUTRALITY 556
(H. Lauterpacht ed., 7th ed. 1952) ("since the terms 'serious violation' and 'urgency' lack precise definition, the
course to be taken is in practice left to the discretion of the injured party") [hereinafter "Oppenheim, Vol. 2"]. In
addition to permitting the resumption of hostilities in response to a serious violation of an armistice, the laws of
armed conflict permit the United States to resume hostilities at its discretion-provided that warning is given to
Iraq. Hague Regulations, Art 36. If the parties have not made any stipulation regarding notice, it may be provided
at any time, and hostilities may recommence immediately after notification. SeeArmy Field Manual 1 487; Oppenheim,
Vol. 2, supra at 556; see also Howard S. Levie, The Nature and Scope of the ArmisticeAgreement, 50 AJIL 880, 893 (1956)
(although armistices generally do not specify the period of advance notice required, under customary interna-
tional law, "good faith requires that notice be given of the intention to resume hostilities") (internal quotations and
citations omitted).
40 Dinstein, supra note 38, at 50-51. Whether or not required under international law, warnings were given. Seegen-
erally UN Doc. S/25091, supra note 35; UN Doc. S/25081, supra note 35; Letter to Congressional Leaders Reporting
on Iraq's Compliance With United Nations Security Council Resolutions (Jan 19,1993), 2 PUB. PAPERS OF GEORGE
BUSH2269-70 (1993) [hereinafter "Bush Letter, Jan. 19,1993"]; President's Radio Address (Dec. 19,1998), 2 PUB.
PAPERS OFWILLIAMJ. CLINTON 2197 (1998) [hereinafter "Clinton Papers (1998)"].
well.41 Thus, because Iraq refused to fully comply with Resolution 687, such as by destroying
fully its WMD and their delivery systems, it was in "serious violation" of the cease-fire and the
United States was justified in resuming the use of force under Resolution 678.
This understanding of the interaction between Resolution 678 and 687 is supported by state
practice in the decade following the end of the first Gulf war. The consistent position of the
United States had been that Resolution 678's authorization continued.42 The United States
and Britain, for example, used force against Iraq in 1993 and 1998 in response to Iraq's material
breach of Resolution 687. OnJanuary 17,1993, President George H. W. Bush ordered missile
strikes against a nuclear facility near Baghdad due to Iraqi infringements of the terms of the
cease-fire.Just four days before, President Bush had ordered air attacks on surface-to-missile
sites and related facilities in the southern no-fly zone. These attacks, which werejoined by Brit-
ain and France, appear to have been primarily in response to Iraqi violations of the south-
ern no-fly zone-Iraq had moved surface-to-air missiles into the zone to threaten coalition
aircraft-but President Bush also pointed to Iraq's "'failure to live up to the resolutions.'"43
The president's report to Congress on the attack takes note of a statement by the UN secre-
tary-general explaining that "'the forces that carried out the [January 13th] raid have received
a mandate from the Security Council, according to Resolution 687, and the cause of the raid
was the violation by Iraq of Resolution 687 concerning the cease-fire .... [T]his action ...
conformed to the Charter of the United Nations."'44
In December 1998, the United States launched seventy hours of missile and aircraft strikes
against Iraq "in response to Iraqi breaches of its obligations under resolutions of the United
Nations Security Council."45 President Clinton explained that the military action, which tar-
geted facilities actively involved in Iraq's WMD programs or that threatened Iraq's neighbors
or U.S. forces, was
consistent with and has been taken in support of numerous U.N. Security Council reso-
lutions, including Resolutions 678 and 687, which authorize U.N. Member States to use
"all necessary means" to implement the Security Council resolutions and to restore peace
and security in the region and establish the terms of the cease-fire mandated by the Coun-
cil, including those related to the destruction of Iraq's WMD programs.46
41 As noted, the Hague Regulations provide either that Iraq must be warned or that such a warning may be avoided
because it would be likely to give Saddam Hussein a substantial advantage. There is a good argument that Iraq was
warned of a resumption of hostilities by SC Res. 1441. SC Res. 1441 cautions that Iraq's continued violation of its inter-
national obligations will result in "serious consequences." See SC Res. 1441, supra note 2, para. 13. Twice before,
military force against Iraq has followed warnings by the Security Council that Iraq's continued intransigence would
result in serious consequences. OnJanuary 8 and 11, 1993, the president of the Security Council warned Iraq that
"serious consequences" would follow if it failed to comply with its international obligations. SeeUN Doc. S/25091,
supra note 35; UN Doc. S/25081, supra note 35.
42 See, e.g., Letter to Congressional Leaders Reporting on Iraq's Compliance With United Nations Security Council
Resolutions (Sept. 16, 1991), 2 PUB. PAPERS OF GEORGE BUSH 1164-65 (1991) (explaining-after the adoption of
SC Res. 687-that the United States was willing to take military action to implement SC Res. 678's call for the
restoration of international peace and security to the region); LegalAuthorityfor the Possible Use ofForceAgainst Iraq,
92 ASIL PROC. 136, 142 (1998) ("In the U.S. Government's view, there is a continuing right to use force [to respond]
to such [material] breaches regardless of whether there is further [Security Council] authorization to respond.")
(Michael Matheson, Principal Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State). SC Res. 687 itself explicitly reaffirmed
SC Res. 678, as did UN Security Council Resolutions 686 and 949. See SC Res. 949 (Oct. 15, 1994); SC Res. 686
(Mar. 2, 1991).
43 Barton Gellman & Ann Devroy, Military Action Against Iraq Signaled by Administration, WASH. POST, Jan. 14,
1993, atAl (quoting President Bush); see also Statement by Marlin Fitzwater, United States Mission to the United
Nations Press Release USUN-1 (93) (Jan. 13,1993) ("[T] he Government of Iraq should understand that continued
defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions and related coalition demarches will not be tolerated.") .
44 See Bush Letter, Jan. 19, 1993, supra note 40.
45 SeeLetter to Congressional Leaders on the Military Strikes Against Iraq (Dec. 18,1998), in Clinton Papers (1998),
supra note 40, at 2195.
46 Id. at 2195-96.
As the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations explained to the Security Council, Iraq had
acted in "flagrant material breach of resolution 687" by interfering with UNSCOM's inspec-
tions, and coalition forces responded under the authority provided by UN resolutions.47
In sum, well-established principles of UN Security Council practice, treaty law, and armi-
stice law allowed the United States to suspend the cease-fire in response to Iraq's material
breaches of Resolution 687. The United States then could rely on Resolution 678 to use "all
necessary means" to bring Iraq into compliance. Nothing in Resolution 1441 suggested that
the Security Council needed to adopt any additional resolution to establish the existence
of further material breaches to provide the basis for the use of force under Resolution 678.
Indeed, Resolution 1441 left intact Resolution 678's reference to the use of force. Resolution
1441 neither revoked Resolution 678's language concerning the use of "all necessary means"
against Iraq, nor terminated its effect in any way.
III. USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ IN ANTICIPATORY SELF-DEFENSE
Independent of the support provided by UN Security Council resolutions, authority for

the armed intervention in Iraq stemmed from the national right of self-defense. Article 51
of the UN Charter recognizes and affirms, but does not limit, that "inherent" right under inter-
national law:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective
self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the
Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and
security.48
Despite the long-standing recognition of a nation's right to self-defense, some argue that
Article 51 has limited the right to permit only a response to an actual "armed attack." Some
even argue that an armed attack must occur across national borders to trigger Article 51.4
Under this interpretation, the UN Charter superseded the existing right under customary
international law to take reasonable anticipatory action in self-defense. There is no indica-
tion that the drafters of the UN Charter intended to limit the customary law in this way, nor
that the United States so understood the Charter when it ratified. Instead, Article 51 merely
partially expressed a right that exists independent of the UN Charter.50
The customary international law right to use force in anticipatory self-defense is a well-
established aspect of the "inherent right" of self-defense. Leading up to the Cuban missile
crisis, the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department ofJustice explained in an internal mem-
orandum:
47 SeeUN Security Council Press Release, Security Council Meets to Discuss Military Strikes Against Iraq; Some Members
Challenge Use of Force Without Council Consent (Dec. 16, 1998), UN Doc. SC/6611, at 1-2, 7. International support
for the 1998 airstrikes was reflected by the offers of Argentina, Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark,
Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom to contribute facil-
ities, equipment or forces to the U.S. military effort, and of Kuwait for the use of its air facilities. Although Britain
andJapan spoke in favor of the strikes, the Russian Federation labeled them as "violat[ing] the principles of inter-
national law and the principle of the [UN] Charter." Id. at 4. Of the Security Council members at the time, China,
Costa Rica, Sweden, Brazil, Gambia, Kenya, and Gabon also spoke against the 1998 strikes-some preferring the
peaceful settlement of disputes and some criticizing the unilateral use of force. Id. at 5-10.
48 UN CHARTER Art. 51.
49 See, e.g., IAN BROWNLIE, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE USE OF FORCE BY STATES 275-80 (1963); LOUIS HENKIN,
HOW NATIONS BEHAVE: LAW AND FOREIGN POLICY 141 (2d ed. 1979).
50 See Myres S. McDougal, The Soviet-Cuban Quarantine and Self-Defense, 57 AJIL 597, 599 (1963) ("There is not the
slightest evidence that the framers of the United Nations Charter, by inserting one provision which expressly reserves
a right of self-defense, had the intent of imposing by this provision new limitations upon the traditional right of
states."); Oscar Schachter, The Right of States to Use Armed Force, 82 MICH. L. REV. 1620, 1634-35 (1984); Abraham
D. Sofaer, International Law and Kosovo, 36 STAN.J. INT'L L. 1,16 (2000); THOMAS M. FRANCK, RECOURSE TO FORCE:
STATE ACTION AGAINST THREATS AND ARMED ATTACKS 97-99 (2002); see generally CHRISTINE GRAY, INTERNATIONAL
LAW AND THE USE OF FORCE 84-119 (2000).
The concept of self-defense in international law of course justifies more than activity
designed merely to resist an armed attack which is already in progress. Under inter-
national law every state has, in the words of [then-Secretary of State] Elihu Root, "the
right... to protect itself by preventing a condition of affairs in which it will be too late
to protect itself."51
The classic formulation of the right of anticipatory self-defense arose from the Caroline inci-
dent. In 1837, the steamer Caroline had been supplying armed insurgents against British rule
in Canada with reinforcements of men and materials from the United States. In response,
a British force from Canada entered U.S. territory at night, seized the Caroline, set the ship on
fire, and launched it down Niagara Falls, killing two U.S. citizens in the process. The British
claimed that they were acting in self-defense, and Secretary of State Daniel Webster called upon
the British to show that the
necessity of self-defence [was] instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and

no moment for deliberation... [and that the British force], even supposing the necessity
of the moment authorized them to enter the territories of the United States at all, did
nothing unreasonable or excessive; since the act,justified by the necessity of self-defence,
must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it.52
The next year, Lord Ashburton, who had been sent by the British as a special minister to re-
solve the Carolinedispute and other related matters, implicity accepted this test byjustifying
Britain's actions in these terms.53 Webster's formulation was reaffirmed a century later by the
International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, when it ruled that the German invasion of
Norway in 1940 was not defensive because it was unnecessary to prevent an "imminent" Allied
invasion.54
The Caroline test has been distilled into two principal requirements. First, the use of force
must be necessary because the threat is imminent and, thus, pursuing peaceful alternatives
is not an option. Second, the response must be proportionate to the threat.55 International
law does not supply a precise or detailed definition of what it means for a threat to be suffi-
ciently "imminent" tojustify the use of force in self-defense as necessary. Although the dic-
tionary definition of "imminent" focuses on the temporal,56 under international law the con-
cept of imminence must encompass an analysis that goes beyond the temporal proximity
of a threat to include the probability that the threat will occur.57
In addition to the probability of the threat, the threatened magnitude of harm must be rele-
vant. The advent of nuclear and other sophisticated weapons has dramatically increased the
degree of potential harm, and the importance of the temporal factor has diminished. Wea-
pons of mass destruction threaten devastating and indiscriminate long-term damage to large seg-
ments of the civilian population and environment.58 In addition, the danger posed byWMD
is exacerbated by the possibility that the means of delivery may be relatively unsophisticated-
51 Memorandum for the Attorney General, from NorbertA. Schlei, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal
Counsel, Re: Legality under International Law of RemedialAction Against Use of Cuba as a Missile Base by the Soviet Union
(Aug. 30, 1962), at 2, reprinted in 6 Green Bag 2d 195, 196 (2003).
52 See Letter from Daniel Webster, U.S. Secretary of State, to Henry Fox, British Minister in Washington (Apr. 24,
1841), in 29 BRITISH AND FOREIGN STATE PAPERS 1840-1841, at 1138 (1857).
53 See Letter from Lord Ashburton to Daniel Webster, U.S. Secretary of State (July 28, 1842), in 30 BRITISH AND
FOREIGNSTATE PAPERS 1841-1842, at (1858), also available at <http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/
britain/br-1842d.htm>.
54 See InternationalMilitary Tribunal (Nuremberg)-Judgment and Sentences, 41 AJIL 172, 205 (1947) ("preventive action
in foreign territory is justified only in case of 'an instant and overwhelming necessity for self-defense, leaving no
choice of means, and no momentfor deliberation'") (quoting the Caroline case); seealso D. W. BOWETT, SELF-DEFENCE
IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 142-43 (1958).
55 See Dinstein, supra note 38, at 208-12, 219-20; see also McDougal, supra note 50, at 597-98.
56 See WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (unabridged) 1130 (1993).
57 See Case Concerning the Gablikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), 1997 ICJ REP. 7 (Sept. 25).
58 SeeLegality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion), 1996 ICJ REP. 95, at ? 36 (July 8).
for example, a "dirty bomb" driven into a building by a suicide bomber, or the spread of a
biological agent with an ordinary crop duster. At the same time, the development of advanced
missile technology has vastly improved the capability for stealth, rendering threats more immi-
nent because there is less time to prevent their launch.
State practice since the development of nuclear weapons and sophisticated delivery systems
demonstrates the evolution of the concept of imminence. During the Cuban missile crisis,
for example, the United States labeled the secret establishment of long-range nuclear missile
bases in Cuba by the Soviet Union as an "immediate" threat to U.S. security and imposed a
quarantine on offensive military equipment to Cuba in self-defense.59 Although the sudden
and secret preparation of the missile bases undoubtedly "add[ed] to an already clear and
present danger," their positioning in Cuba constituted a less immediate temporal threat of
armed attack on the United States than that contemplated by previous applications of the
Caroline test. There was no indication that the Soviet Union would use them either imme-
diately, or even in the near term.6
In the past two decades, the United States has used military force in anticipatory self-defense
against Libya, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Sudan. The United Statesjustified the 1986
strikes against Libya in large part as necessary to forestall future terrorist attacks.61 Although
several countries criticized the U.S. strikes by supporting a UN resolution condemning the
attack as a violation of the UN Charter, Australia, Denmark, France, and the United Kingdom
joined the United States in opposing the resolution.62 The United States again responded
in self-defense to an imminent threat to U.S. lives when it took military action in Panama on
December 20, 1989.63 In the midst of the fighting, the Security Council considered a draft
resolution that would have labeled the invasion as "a flagrant violation of international law,"
but Great Britain, France, and Canadajoined the United States in opposing the resolution.64
In 1998 the United States launched cruise missile attacks in self-defense against terrorist train-
ing camps and installations in Afghanistan used by Osama bin Laden's organization and against
a facility in Sudan being used to produce materials for chemical weapons.6 The Security Council
took no formal action in response.
Self-defense has served specifically as ajustification for strikes against Iraq in the decade
preceding the March 2003 conflict. In June 1993, for example, the United States justified
its strike on Iraqi intelligence headquarters as self-defense because of "compelling evidence"
that Iraq had attempted to assassinate President George H. W. Bush. As President Clinton
explained:
59 SeeProclamation 3504: Interdiction of the Delivery of Offensive Weapons to Cuba (Oct. 23,1962), PUB. PAPERS
OFJOHN F. KENNEDY 809, 810 (1962); White House Statement on Soviet Proposals Relating to International Security
(Oct. 27, 1962), id., at 813.
60 SeeRadio and Television Report to the American People on the Soviet Arms Buildup in Cuba (Oct. 21,1962),
id. at 806-07. It should be noted that while the Department ofJustice may have believed the quarantine to be a lawful
exercise of self-defense, the officialjustification offered diplomatically relied upon authorization by the Organization
of American States.
61 See Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate on
the United States Air Strike Against Libya (Apr. 16, 1986), 1 PUB. PAPERS OF RONALD REAGAN 478 (1986).
62 See UN Doc. S/PV. 2682 (Apr. 21, 1986).
63 See Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate on
the United States Military Action in Panama (Dec. 21, 1989), 2 PUB. PAPERS OF GEORGE BUSH 1734 (1989) ("The
deployment of U.S. Forces is an exercise of the right of self-defense recognized in Article 51 of the United Nations
Charter and was necessary to protect American lives in imminent danger ....").
64 UN Doc. S/21048 (Dec. 22, 1989); UN Doc. S/PV. 2902 (Dec. 23, 1989).
5 SeeLetter to Congressional Leaders Reporting on Military Action Against Terrorist Sites in Afghanistan and
Sudan (Aug. 21,1998), in Clinton Papers, supra note 40, at 1464 (1998) ("These strikes were a necessary and pro-
portionate response to the imminent threat of further terrorist attacks against U.S. personnel and facilities. These
strikes were intended to prevent and deter additional attacks by a clearly identified terrorist threat.").
The evidence of the Government of Iraq's violence and terrorism demonstrates that
Iraq poses a continuing threat to United States nationals and shows utter disregard for
the will of the international community as expressed in Security Council Resolutions and
the United Nations Charter. Based on the Government of Iraq's pattern of disregard for
international law, I concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that new diplomatic
initiatives or economic measures could influence the current Government of Iraq to cease
planning future attacks against the United States.6
The objective of the strikes was to diminish Iraq's capability to support violence against the
United States and others, and "to deter Saddam Hussein from supporting such outlaw be-
havior in the future."67 The Security Council rejected the plea of the Iraqi ambassador to con-
demn the U.S. action as an act of aggression.
The new threat of nuclear weapons apparently is not, however, sufficient to erase completely
any requirement of temporality. For example, the international community did not consider
the threat posed by an Iraqi nuclear reactor before it had become operational to be sufficient
tojustify its destruction by Israel in 1981.6 Nonetheless, the nature of the Iraqi threat has
changed significantly in the past twenty years. In 1981, Iraq was permitted to have nuclear
materials under the safeguards of the IAEA, and Saddam Hussein had not yet used chemical
weapons against Iran and his own people, invaded Kuwait, or spent over a decade flouting his
country's international obligations to destroy and cease to develop WMD and their means
of delivery. In other words, the imminence of a likely attack by Iraq has increased since 1981
because Iraq has demonstrated a WMD capability and a willingness to use it.
The use of force in anticipatory self-defense must be necessary and proportional to the
threat. At least in the realm of WMD, rogue nations, and international terrorism, however,
the test for determining whether a threat is sufficiently "imminent" to render the use of
force necessary at a particular point has become more nuanced than SecretaryWebster's nine-
teenth-century formulation. Factors to be considered should now include the probability of
an attack; the likelihood that this probability will increase, and therefore the need to take
advantage of a limited window of opportunity; whether diplomatic alternatives are practical;
and the magnitude of the harm that could result from the threat. If a state instead were obli-
gated to wait until the threat were truly imminent in the temporal sense envisioned by Sec-
retary Webster, there is a substantial danger of missing a limited window of opportunity to
prevent widespread harm to civilians. Finally, in an age of technologically advanced delivery
systems and WMD, international law cannot require that we ignore the potential harm rep-
resented by the threat.
Applying the reformulated test for using force in anticipatory self-defense to the potential
use of force against Iraq reveals that the threat of a WMD attack by Iraq, either directly or
through Iraq's support for terrorism, was sufficiently "imminent" to render the use of force
necessary to protect the United States, its citizens, and its allies. The force used was propor-
tionate to the threat posed by Iraq; in other words, it was limited to that which is needed to
eliminate the threat, including the destruction of Iraq's WMD capability and removing the
source of Iraq's hostile intentions and actions, Saddam Hussein.
66 See Letter to Congressional Leaders on the Strike on Iraqi Headquarters (June 28, 1993), 1 PUB. PAPERS OF
WILLIAMJ. CLINTON 940 (1993).
67 See Address to the Nation on the Strike on Iraqi Intelligence (June 26, 1993), id. at 938 (1993). Similarly, the
January 17, 1993, strike on a nuclear facility in Baghdad, while primarily designed to encourage Iraq to comply
with its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions, was undertaken in part to prevent the facility from
being used again to support Iraq's nuclear weapons program. See Bush Letter, Jan. 19, 1993, supra note 40, at
2269-70.
68 See SC Res. 487 (June 19, 1981) (unanimously "condemn [ing]" the Israeli strikes as a "clear violation of the
Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct.").
IV. CONCLUSION
International law permitted the use of force against Iraq on two independent grounds.
First, the Security Council authorized military action against Iraq to implement the terms of
the cease-fire that suspended the hostilities of the 1991 Gulfwar. Due to Iraq's material breaches
of the cease-fire, established principles of international law-both treaty and armistice law-
permitted the United States to suspend its terms and to use force to compel Iraqi compli-
ance. Such a use of force was consistent with U.S. practice both with regard to Iraq and with
regard to treaties and cease-fires. Second, international law permitted the use of force against
Iraq in anticipatory self-defense because of the threat posed by an Iraq armed with WMD and
in potential cooperation with international terrorist organizations.
This approach to the use of force against Iraq has significant implications for the future.
To be sure, Iraq could be seen as a unique case. Due to the web of Security Council resolu-
tions going back more than a decade, the United States and its allies could draw sufficient
legal authority from those enactments alone. No other use of force in the near future may
receive such support from the Security Council. On the other hand, Iraq could be said, unfor-
tunately, to represent the coming challenges to international peace and stability as a rogue
state that has WMD and supports terrorism. In this type of security environment, the United
States and its allies may well have to rely exclusively upon their right to anticipatory self-defense
in order to use force against such nations. In order to address the challenge posed by this new
threat, the international legal system will have to adapt to take into account the probability
of an attack, the magnitude of the possible harm, and the windows of opportunity within
which proportionate force may be used.
The use of force in anticipatory self-defense against terrorist groups armed with WMD,
or against the rogue nations that support them, will depend on three factors that go beyond
mere temporal imminence. First, does a nation have WMD and the inclination to use them?
In the case of Iraq, the record made clear that Saddam Hussein both possessed WMD and had
used them against external enemies (Iran) and his own citizens. In future cases, the posses-
sion of WMD and signs of hostile intent must be taken into account in deciding whether to
use force preemptively. That decision will rely, in part, on intelligence about rogue nations'
WMD programs, their ability to acquire components and technical knowledge, and their
ability to assemble a weapon.
Second, nations will have to use force while taking into account the available window of
opportunity. If a state waits until a terrorist attack is on the verge of being launched, it likely
will be unable to protect the civilians who are being targeted, especially against suicide bomb-
ers who seem immune to traditional methods of deterrence. Terrorists are also difficult to locate
and track and seek to escape detection by concealing themselves and their activities among
an innocent civilian population. As terrorists burrow more deeply into this population, defen-
sive options may become more limited. Due to these considerations, a state may need to act
when it has a window of opportunity to prevent a terrorist attack and simultaneously minimize
civilian casualties. Preventing a terrorist attack using WMD may require that the United States
and its allies take advantage of a window of opportunity that opens before a rogue nation
transfers WMD to a terrorist organization. Were the United States, for example, to wait until
a rogue nation has transferred WMD to terrorist groups, it could become extremely difficult
to determine where and when WMD would be used given the sporadic nature of terrorist
attacks and the terrorist tactic of infiltrating the civilian population.
Third, nations will have to take into account that the degree of harm from a WMD attack
would be catastrophic. The combination of the vast potential destructive capacity of WMD and
the modest means required for their delivery make them more of a threat than the military
forces of many countries. Chemical weapons and biological agents are easy to hide, and small
quantities can have a devastating effect on the civilian population. This threat only multiplies
if rogue nations were to transfer WMD to terrorists. Thus, even if the probability that a rogue
nation would attack the United States directly with WMD were not certain, the exceptionally
high degree of harm that would result, combined with a limited window of opportunity and
the likelihood that if the United States did not act, the threat would increase, could lead a
nation to conclude that military action is necessary in self-defense. Indeed, as President Bush
recently cautioned: "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."69
JOHNYOO*
THE FALL OF SADDAM HUSSEIN:

SECURITY COUNCIL MANDATES AND PREEMPTIVE SELF-DEFENSE
At long last, the people of Iraq are freed from the brutality of Saddam Hussein. The swift
success of the coalition's military campaign has been followed by predictable difficulties in
organizing a new government, restoring an economy, rebuilding civic society, and quelling
violence from remnants of the old regime. But these challenges are kept in scale by recalling
a dictator who murdered three hundred thousand fellow citizens.1 Saddam chose weapons
of mass destruction as the central symbol of his domestic and international swagger-using
the same internal security apparatus to parry United Nations inspectors and to extinguish
domestic political dissent. Removing Iraq's Ba'athist regime has ended a looming danger to
regional neighbors, including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The crucial hopes for Middle East
peace may also be enhanced by the change. And a new government in Baghdad lessens the
chance that weapons materiel will be transferred to ill-intentioned nonstate actors.
I. THE INTERPLAY OF PROCEDURE AND PURPOSE
These welcome consequences are not the single measure of international law. The United
Nations Charter seeks to advance human security through substantive commitments and pro-
cedural rules of the road alike. Decision-making mechanisms that give voice to countries of
diverse cultures and regions help to counterbalance self-regardingjudgments and discourage
unwarranted action. Such procedural checks and balances are never to be lightly discarded.
Unilateral action, compelling on the facts, may be used as the justification for less attractive
interventions, and this normative danger will inspire a suitable caution in most state actors.
Yet there is sometimes a rift between procedure and purpose. The moral history of the United
Nations shows that collective passivity can result in profound human suffering. One need only
recall the Bosnian war and the Rwanda genocide, and the early failures to intervene. The
Security Council's abstention from the final round of the Iraq crisis in 2003 does not mean
that the United Nations and its political tallies are forever irrelevant. But the Council was
stymied by threats of veto in the crucial decisions on the Iraqi war and the fate of the Iraqi
people. This impasse necessarily reopens the debate on the tension between substantive and
procedural law, or as some style it, between legitimacy and legality.
69 George W. Bush, Commencement Address at the United States Military Academy in West Point (June 1, 2002),
38 WEEKLYCOMP. PRES. DOC. 944, 946 (June 10, 2002), available at<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/
2002/06/20020601-3.html>.
* Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley (Boalt Hall)
School of Law; DeputyAssistantAttorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. DepartmentofJustice, 2001-2003.
I thank Robert Delahunty and Caroline Krass for their helpful advice, and Gene Hosey for his assistance. The views
expressed here are those of the author alone.
'Simon de Bruxelles, Britons Find Graves of 300,000 Victims,' TIMES (London),June 4,2003, available in LEXIS, News
Library, Major World Newspapers File.

American Society of International Law The American Journal of International Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Society of International Law The American Journal of International Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Society of International Law The American Journal of International Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Law and the War in Iraq

Author(s): John Yoo

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE WAR IN IRAQ

6 SC Res. 687 (Apr. 3, 1991).

8 SC Res. 707 (Aug. 15, 1991).

16 Bush UN Address, supra note 1.

24 See SC Res. 678, supra note 4, para. 2.

28 See SC Res. 1441, supra note 2, para. 2.

III. USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ IN ANTICIPATORY SELF-DEFENSE

Independent of the support provided by UN Security Council resolutions, authority for

necessity of self-defence [was] instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and

THE FALL OF SADDAM HUSSEIN:

I. THE INTERPLAY OF PROCEDURE AND PURPOSE

You might also like