Jus Ad Bellum in the Iraq War: A Matter of Interpretation?

Abstract

This paper analyses the rationales that Tony Blair and George W. Bush made, and continue to invoke, to justify the invasion of Iraq that took place in March, 2003. Emphasis is placed on how these arguments fit within established international law norms, principles, and canons of interpretation. These rationales, while supported by some of those advisors and academics closest to Bush and Blair, have also been roundly denounced in the international political and legal communities. Evidence, or the lack of it, has discredited the bases of their assertions. The paper concludes with the effect of the second Iraq War as precedent for future conflict. It argues that continuing to cling to the justifications offered as a 'legal' basis for war - or even asserting that they lend 'legitimacy' and can serve as a precedent - is at once apologetic and dangerous.

Ce document analyse les raisons que Tony Blair et George W. Bush ont avancees pour justifier I'invasion de I’lraq en mars 2003. L’analyse met I’accent sur le fait que ces arguments cadrent bien dans le contexte actuel des normes, principes et interpretations du droit international. Ces raisons, quoique recevant le support des proches de Bush et Blair, ont aussi ete fortement denoncees par la communaute Internationale. Le manque de preuves a discredits les bases de leurs assertions. Pour terminer, le document examine les repercussions que cette deuxieme guerre en Iraq pourrait avoir en tant que precedent lors de conflits futurs. Il argumente que de continuer d'accepter ces justifications comme etant legales est a la fois apologiste et dangereux.