The Doctrine Of George Bush

10 Pages 2390 Words

the United Nations coincide with the one of Bush administration? And does the difference in definitions justifies the violance of international law? As a fact of such violance is clear: there was no direct threat from Iraq, either was the invasion in Iraq approved by the Security Council of the United Nations. Moreover, the issuance of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive self-defense is a violation of international law as a crime against peace, which is defined in the Nuremberg Charter as the "Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances." According to Richard Falk, “it is a doctrine without limits, without accountability to the UN or international law, without any dependence on a collective judgment of responsible governments and, what is worse, without any convincing demonstration of practical necessity”

The Security Council of the United Nations is authorized to maintain and restore the international law and security(Articles 41 and 42) . If countries ignore the resolutions of the Security Council and decide on their own which country to punish and to which grant mercy, than the necessity of such council is doubted.

In Chapter 5 of the United Nations Charter is stated that the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security. The Bush Administration used this statement in order to prove that the military actions against Iraq were authorized. Iraq was defined as a country presenting potential threat to the international peace and security, but in terms of this definition almost any country of the world could present this “potential threat”, especially the countries like Iran, Russia, China, North Korea… While the Security Council has passed several resolutions concerning Iraq over the past 12 years, only one explicitly authorized the use of force. Resolution 678, passed on Nov. 29...