Is Iraq war legal? And the things that the U.N should do – (1)

“The U.S also invade Iraq and made a lot of war crimes in Iraq. Why does no one condemn the U.S while condemning Russia for invading Ukraine?”

There have been so many such comments in much Russia-Ukraine news. Every time such a comment appears, the comment section goes silent. So in this article, I would like to talk about my perspective on the Iraq war. 

When talking about the Iraq War, besides the above comment I quoted, the legality of the Iraq War was a hot topic that had caused many debates. From the UN and many international legal experts’ perspectives, the Iraq wars are illegal. Since there was no an armed attack against the US or the coalition members, and the Iraq war was not supported by the UN security council, the war violate Article 2(4) of the UN charter – All members shouldn’t use force to threaten or destroy the territorial integrity or political independence of any country. ^[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War   Nevertheless, from the U.S and U.K perspectives, the Iraq war is legal. Their reasons are self-defense under the circumstance of an armed attack did occur and the invasion was authorized by the UN. In this article, I will list the U.S’s reasons in detail in the following and talk about my view, too. 

Before discussing the legality of the Iraq War, I will discuss the most common question first:

Many U.S invasions had killed many civilians, including the Cuba invasion, the Afghanistan war, and the Iraq war. Why does no one condemn the U.S?

I agree that U.S invasions had killed many civilians. However, they are individual behaviors and don’t represent the whole U.S army. In fact, many war crimes that come from Western countries in these wars have been submitted to the international court and the soldiers who committed war crimes have been held accountable for their behaviors in recent wars. ^[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_Afghanistan  In one interview, one of Britain’s most authoritative judicial figures Lord Bingham also said, “Such breaches of the law, however, were not the result of deliberate government policy, and the rights of victims had been recognized”. ^[3]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/18/iraq-us-foreign-policy 

Plus, you can NOT simply judge by the appearance of damages after the invasion and say it’s all the Western countries’ fault; although war crimes have been committed by all sides, the Taliban have been responsible for the majority.^[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_Afghanistan  

Compared to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, war crimes should not be considered as individual behaviors due to the massive amounts of crimes. Rather, these behaviors represent the whole Russian army since Russia has not admitted their soldiers made those crimes and won’t hold their soldiers accountable. The leadership allows these atrocities.

There are two exceptions, one is the wars in World War II, many war crimes from the U.S never got suited, for instance, the U.S soldier had raped many Japanese women during WW2. Nevertheless, Japan itself did the same thing to China, Korea, and Taiwan, and many Japanese never apologize to those women who got raped and never admit they made the Nanjing massacre. ^[5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre I would say war crimes that happened around WW2 are terrible habits due to a lack of moral values in everyone’s knowledge in that era, and this situation has changed a lot during these years. The Cuba invasion, the Afghanistan war, and the Iraq war did not have this kind of massive deaths and rape behaviors anymore (but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine still has this kind of war crimes, see how outdated Russia’s army are^^). 

The other exception that some minorities may argue if they are people who are careful in research for proving their argument like me, is that war crimes made by the U.S soldiers in the Afghanistan war had been refused to make verdicts in the international court (ICC) by the U.S. The U.S argues that ICC should not have jurisdiction over Americans or people from other nations that never ratified the treaty that created the court in 2002^[6]https://www.voanews.com/a/us-afghan-investigation/4564590.html  The U.S’s representative Bolton further called ICC “fundamentally illegitimate” and an “assault on the constitutional rights of the United States”. Bolton said, “Since the creation of the ICC, the United States has consistently declined to join the court because of its broad, unaccountable prosecutorial powers; the threat it poses to American national sovereignty; and other deficiencies that render it illegitimate.” ^[7]https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/712721556/world-criminal-court-rejects-probe-into-u-s-actions-in-afghanistan  He said that it is not that the U.S. opposes holding war criminals accountable, but rather that they should “face charges by sovereign national governments” if crimes are alleged”^[8]https://www.voanews.com/a/us-afghan-investigation/4564590.html . As for the ICC’s perspective, the ICC claimed that “The ICC was designed to be permanent and independent of national governments as it investigated war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. ^[9]https://www.voanews.com/a/us-afghan-investigation/4564590.html  

With respect to this second exception, I want to make several arguments:

I. the U.S argument had been rejected by the ICC’s appeals chamber after then and ICC started trials for those war crimes because of that ^[10]https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/mar/05/senior-icc-judges-authorise-afghanistan-war-crimes-inquiry .
The rejection is based on several reasons. First, the ICC have the right to do verdicts over war crimes on the territory of an ICC member countries even if U.S did not sign Rome Statute, and Afghanistan is a ICC member country, so the criteria is satisfied for ICC to do prosecutions^[11]https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/02/qa-international-criminal-court-and-united-states#5 .
Second, Human Right Watch pointed out, “under international law, states have a responsibility to investigate and appropriately prosecute war crimes, and other international crimes. The ICC does not shift this responsibility. It is a court of last resort. Under what is known as the “principle of complementarity,” the ICC may only exercise its jurisdiction when a country is either unwilling or genuinely unable to investigate and prosecute these grave crimes.” In the sixth point of the article of Human Right Watch, Human Right Watch pointed out, “In 2009, the US Department of Justice opened an investigation into 101 cases of alleged detainee abuse by the CIA, but no charges were brought. Human Rights Watch found no evidence that the investigators interviewed any victims of CIA torture. Moreover, the investigation was limited to abuses that went beyond the interrogation methods authorized by the Justice Department. Many of the authorized techniques were abusive – some clearly amounting to torture – and should have been included. ” ^[12]https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/02/qa-international-criminal-court-and-united-states#5   

II. From my view, international law is essentially flawed. 
This is actually a new topic. I will write a new article and add the link here after then. 

III. This exception has been a mistake made by the Trump administration. What you should know is that if you supported Trump in the past, you should review yourself by thinking about why you supported this man while he intentionally let his criminals escape from their legal responsibilities, threat ICC judges, and revoke one of the ICC judges’ passports ^[13]https://www.voanews.com/a/us-afghan-investigation/4564590.html ^[14]https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/712721556/world-criminal-court-rejects-probe-into-u-s-actions-in-afghanistan . 
Although I said that Trump intentionally let his criminals escape from legal responsibilities, I do need to mention that the Trump administration did not 100% make his criminals escape; it simply let those U.S criminals face charges by the U.S government if crimes are alleged as Bolton said (Refer to the last two paragraphs). So if you assume the Trump administration did nothing wrong based on Bolton’s statement, there is still a difference between U.S’s charges internally and Russia’s denial of crimes (because it means Russia will not charge those criminals including Putin at all).
Nevertheless, in my opinion, first, the action of threatening ICC judges is incorrect itself. Second, judging from the fact that no charges were brought in the 101 cases in 2009 and the CIA covered up its crimes^[15]https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/02/qa-international-criminal-court-and-united-states#6 , along with Bolton’s statement I quoted in the earlier paragraph, I do think Trump administration did intentionally try to make his criminals escape from their legal responsibilities.  

Is Iraq War legal?

The U.S’s reasons for the Iraq war are legal

1. Self-defense 
(1) Iraq violated U.N’s resolutions 678, 687, and 1441, since Iraq did not remove all its chemical and biological weapons, and this fact posed a potential threat to the international peace and security.The U.S followed the U.N’s resolutions thus starting the Iraq war.^[16]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/17/foreignpolicy.uk2  ^[17]https://www.theage.com.au/national/yes-this-war-is-legal-20030319-gdvebq.html 

(2) Armed attack by Iraq did occur against the US and its coalition partners: An assassination attempt on former US President Bush in 1993, firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, the US reserved the right to self-defense, even without a UN mandate.

2. The invasion was already authorized by existing United Nations Security Council resolutions and a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities, and not a war of aggression as the United States and the UK were acting as agents for the defense of Kuwait in response to Iraq’s 1990 invasion^[18]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War .  

My View

Legal Perspective

After Operation Desert Storm forced Iraq from Kuwait, U.N demanded a ceasefire with the condition that requires Iraq to destroy or remove all its chemical and biological weapons under Resolution 687. This condition was reaffirmed in resolution 1441 in 2002. From the U.S’s view, Iraq did not adhere to UN’s resolution 687, thus the U.S has the right to use force to demand Iraq adhere to the resolutions. ^[19]https://www.theage.com.au/national/yes-this-war-is-legal-20030319-gdvebq.html  ^[20]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/17/foreignpolicy.uk2  Therefore, the U.S’s position is based on the potential threats that Iraq could pose to both the international community and the U.S itself since Iraq did assassinate former U.S president Bush in 1993. 

To explain the U.S’s perspective in detail, the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith stated the U.S followed resolution 1441 by saying “A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.  In resolution 1441 the security council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687″^[21]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/17/foreignpolicy.uk2 . In a Wikipedia article regarding Resolution 687, it wrote that “the concluding paragraph 34, which required that “[the Security Council] decides to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.” This statement was widely interpreted as ‘obey or we will force you to by all means necessary.’ This text was used by the United States as a justification for the 1996 bombing of Iraq, the 1998 bombing of Iraq, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, on the basis that Iraq refused to comply with various United Nations resolutions. ”  ^[22]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_687 . Nevertheless, many professors have stated that the resolution 687 and resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force ^[23]http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm  ^[24]http://www.robincmiller.com/art-iraq/b58.htm . For example, for resolution 1441, Professor James Crawford from Cambridge said, “It’s very contrived to treat Resolution 1441 as if it authorizes the use of force.” ^[25]http://www.robincmiller.com/art-iraq/b58.htm .  ^[26]https://peacemaker.un.org/iraqkoweit-resolution687 ; for resolution 687, the experts stated that “In the case of resolution 678, the authorization to use force terminated with the adoption of resolution 687. It cannot be revived in completely different circumstances some 12 years later.” ^[27]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/17/iraq.foreignpolicy1 . Since resolution 678 can not be revived,both resolutions 687 and 1441 did not indicate any use of force, the attorney general Lord Goldsmith’s statement is therefore invalid. Resolution 687 states that it “decides to take such further steps as may be required” as described above^[28]https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IQ%20KW_910403_SCR687%281991%29_0.pdf ; resolution 1441 stated “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions”
 ^[29]https://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf , as Professor James Crawford from Cambridge said, l repeat again, “It’s very contrived to treat Resolution 1441 as if it authorizes the use of force.” ^[30]http://www.robincmiller.com/art-iraq/b58.htm ; these resolutions only proved Iraq’s legal responsibilities and that Iraq had violated the terms in the resolutions, but did not indicate that any member country can use force. Based on the above legal analysis, the Iraq war is illegal.  

As to Point 2: The invasion was authorized, according to ICJ Legal Adviser Ian Seiderman: “The present regime in Iraq is certainly responsible for widespread and systematic human rights violations over the years. However, this reprehensible human rights record does not by itself provide a legal basis for resorting to war. The appropriate method of addressing such gross abuses is to treat them as international crimes and to use and strengthen enforcement mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court” ^[31]https://web.archive.org/web/20030407232423/http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en . So can Point 2 justify the U.S’s invasion of Iraq? Still no, legally.   

Self-Defense

The above analysis is a legal perspective focused on Points 1. (1) and (2); however, there is something we missed above for determining whether the Iraq war is indeed illegal or not, and I have a different view while I agree with the Iraq war is illegal from a legal perspective.
In my view, the whole point is that the U.S intentionally used Point 1. (1)’s legal argument to back up the U.S’s intention of preventing a national security threat, which is Point 1. (2) (assassinate former President Bush), but the question is – is the prevention of a potential threat legal? This question is something we missed above. 

The question of whether the prevention of a potential threat is legal or not comes with the topic of self-defense, which is what the U.S claimed in Point 1. (2). So to determine whether the prevention is legal, we need to talk about whether the Iraq war is justified by the reason of self-defense from the U.S. 

In an essay from Professor Charles Pierson of the University of Denver Sturm College, Professor Pierson discussed the Caroline doctrine which is widely used to determine whether a country’s action has the elements which constitute self-defense and the different schools of the definition of self-defense. Under Caroline doctrine, an actual armed attack was not required as the precondition for the use of force in self-defense. Thus, the Caroline criteria permit both reactive and anticipatory self-defense so long as necessity and proportionality are observed. The conditions of necessity and proportionality came to be accepted as the customary law requirements for the exercise of self-defense.  In the essay, he pointed out there are two schools – Restrictionaists and Counter-restrictionists. For restrictionists, since Article 51, the United Nations Charter’s provision on self-defense does not include the phrase “anticipatory self-defense.” and Article 51 contains the phrase “if an armed attack occurs”, Article 51 eliminates the customary right of anticipatory self-defense in the Caroline doctrine and limits self-defense to the case of an actual armed attack. Restrictionaists maintain that Article 51 ‘s drafters intended to raise the standard of necessity required up until 1945.” Henceforth, the necessity to use force in self-defense would exist only “if an armed attack occurs.” 
In contrast, the counter-restrictionists believe that the customary right of anticipatory self-defense survives under the Charter. The customary right allowed the force to be used in advance of an armed attack so long as an attack was imminent. The United States follows the counter-restrictionist position. Judging from the definition of both schools in his essay, I think the legal experts who I listed in the first section of the legal analysis above are closer to the restrictionists. Therefore, you have to understand that there are different perspectives regarding self-defense in international law. Does the reason for the assassination attempt on former US President Bush in 1993 satisfy the elements of self-defense legally? This is something worth to be debated on.

Does the reason for the assassination attempt on former US President Bush in 1993 satisfy the elements of self-defense legally?  
What constitues self-defense is the central topic that restrictionalists and counter-restrictionalists have debated on. In Professor Pierson’s essay, restrictionalists focus on following the literal explanation of Article 51, which is “an actual armed attck”, while counter-restrictionalists support a broader explanation of “armed aggression” or “imminent attack”. If you choose restrictionalists’ view of self-defense just as many professor I listed out above did, the Iraq war will be illegal since there is no “actual armed attack” as many legal experts stated except for the assissanation of former president Bush is a point we have to discuss ^[32]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War .
Nevertheless, Professor Pierson supported counter-restrictionalists’ view in his essay, he argued, “as international law scholars have not been able to agree on a definition of aggression in fifty years, it would be odd if Article 51 identified aggression with only one narrow contingency, an “armed attack,” and restricted self-defense to that circumstance alone. The International Court of Justice has not spoken to the legality of anticipatory self-defense“. He also pointed out, “Had Article 51 ‘s purpose been to change existing customary law, this would have been a change so momentous that it would have been extensively debated in the drafting sessions.” During Kennedy Administration, former U.S president Kennedy said “We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation’s security to constitute maximum peril. Nuclear weapons are so destructive and ballistic weapons are so swift, that any substantially increased possibility of their use or any sudden change in their deployment may well be regarded as a definite threat to peace.” Therefore, counter-rationalists also hold that the critical factor of self-defense is an enemy’s intent to imminently attack.

I personally agree with counter-restrionalists’ view. If a country can not act in advance for potential threats, there will possibly be more events like assassinations of a president or 911 occurring. In fact, former Vice President Dick Cheney said a similar thing, “the Sept. I1 attacks had changed all of the rules of how the U.S. would defend itself. If we simply sit back and operate by 20th- century standards …. we say wait until we’re hit by an identifiable attack from Iraq…..The consequences could be devastating.” ^[33]https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1179&context=cwilj . Hence, with respect to the question of whether self-defense includes “anticipatory attack” or not, I agree with counter-restrictionists’ view: self-defense does include “anticipatory attack”. 

Now comes the question, if self-defense includes “imminent threat” or “anticipatory attack” in a legal perspective, is the assassination of former U.S president Bush a legitimate reason that the U.S can say “we have an imminent threat”? World Socialist wrote that “Legal scholars said Iraq posed no such an imminent threat, particularly with the presence of UN weapons inspectors in the country”^[34]https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/03/lawy-m22.html . However, this opinion is based on another U.S argument that Iraq may contain chemical or nuclear weapons thus creating a threat to national security. If the scholars only considered whether particular weapons exist in Iraq, they only answer half of the question; the question remains: Is the assassination of a president a legitimate reason to say there is “an imminent threat”? Since the assassination was probably from the former Iraq leader, Saddam Hussien, the U.S’s goal is to topple his regime. Is regime change of one country by other countries legal? Many scholars would say “no” since the U.N charter does not allow a regime change by other countries ^[35]https://inkstickmedia.com/when-is-regime-change-ok/ . Accordingly, one of the scholars who would answer “no”, Vaughan Lowe, professor of Oxford University, said that Bush and Blair had further “muddied the waters” legally by speaking of toppling Saddam Hussein. There was no precedent in international law for using force to change a regime, a proposition that Lowe labeled “dangerous.” ^[36]https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/03/lawy-m22.html .  

Regime Change

Despite many scholars’ objections to regime change by external forces, I personally agree with that. I have two reasons:
First, just as Kennedy and counter-restrictionalists said, in the current age, some weapons such as ballistic and nuclear weapons are so destructive that we can’t just act after we receive “the first attack”. Although the professor Pierson did not talk about whether regime change by an external force is okay in his point of view and only talk about “the first blow” and the modern weapons are very destructive in his essay, in my opinion, the U.N should make regime change by external forces legal as long as a new local government is selected by its local people and the U.N with the U.N’s help to stabilize the new government (even though it’s not legal in the current time), and I would add that many innocent civilians will be dead or get hurt in the first attack, this situation shouldn’t be what we expect in every future threat, regardless whether the enemy’s weapons are destructive or not.

Second, many scholars and normal people haven’t noticed this point. There are still some countries in the world that are led by dictators or terrorists, for example, Russia and Afghanistan, and people in there are suffering. If there is no external force to topple the regime, it will be difficult for local people to topple the regime by themselves. Why is it difficult? Because normal civilians have no weapons except for guns, and a gun can’t beat the army, navy, and airforce; it is difficult to even the party who the local people are facing is the only the police force. This explanation should additionally answer the question “Why Russians don’t oppose Putin?” They did but failed (Although I intend to write another article explaining this topic). Additionally, allowing normal civilians to have tanks and warplanes with weapon systems is NOT a good option even in a democratic country (Because it’s dangerous). So regime change by external force sometimes is necessary.
I want to emphasize one point which people also haven’t noticed: You think the U.S is the saint/hero and did many good things because of what I say above? No. You got be kidding me.
The U.S never starts wars because it wants to save local people there; the U.S simply acts because the dictators become national security threats to the U.S. For example, in the invasion of Cuba, why the U.S started because the U.S was afraid of Communism will infiltrate the U.S from Cuba. Other examples such as the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war, one is because of the 911 attack, the other one is because of the assassination of former U.S president Bush. That’s why the U.S keeps using the reason of “self-defense”. The greater good happened simply because the dictators also did bad to their people, so the U.S thought that toppling the regime is also good for local people there. The main reason is preventing the U.S from the potential security threats; helping local people was simply a side benefit to the U.S.

Accordingly, the U.S actually has behaved okay under the U.N charter and the international law, because the U.S never started a war out of a moral reason, “we want to save local people out there”. On the contrary, the reason for wars from the U.S is always “self-defense”, which is under the U.N charter, solely the legal definition is the topic on which experts and the U.S have disputed as I explained above. The U.N’s establishment and the U.N charter were aiming for world peace. Nevertheless, is self-defense enough for world peace? I don’t think so. If we don’t help out armless people under dictatorship to change regime, they will remain suffering from the dictator’s cruel reign forever, just see Afghanistan under Taliban, Tibet^[37]https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/藏區連環自焚事件  , Hong Kong, and Xingjiang. Can we do anything for Hong Kong? Except for news reports, meetings at the U.N talking about how disgraceful China is by inviting Hong Kong people, applause on Youtube and U.N meetings for outspoken Hong Kong people, and helping them emigrant to other countries if they are sick of Xi Jing Ping, NO, and not everyone have the luxury to emigrant, plus it will be extremely difficult to help all of refugees emigrant to your country, see the current circumstance of France and the U.S, see how France President Macron, who graduated from a top school Paris Institute of Political Studies, is struggling with the immigrant issue. (Similar to the Russia-Ukraine war, except that we can at least donate weapons under this case because Ukraine is a country^^.) That’s why I think regime change by external force should become legal under the U.N charter. 

There is actually one way I can think of to help local civilians in Russia and Hong Kong overthrow their regime without external force, which is to train those civilians as soldiers secretly and provide them heavy weapons, let them overthrow their leader by force on their own. This way will be the case we see in the Cuba invasion (I will use “Bay of Pigs Invasion” instead of from here). However, the Bay of Pigs Invasion failed because the U.S president Kennedy at that time was afraid of letting the international community know the U.S’s involvement in this matter, so changed the original military plan by canceling the US air strikes that would have neutralized Castro(the Cuba dictator)’s aviation. There were two reasons behind his change of strategy: (If the U.S was known to be behind the invasion) 1. This would damage the U.S’s international reputation.  2. Give the Soviet Union an excuse to provoke an nuclear conflict ^[38]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion  ^[39]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56808455. 

If the U.S help Russians or Hong Kong people in the way it did in the past to help Cubans – change the plan to minimize the U.S’s presence on the surface, isn’t it clear that Russians/Hong Kong people are likely to fail because they have no air power support? You can just look at Ukraine’s case, although Ukraine is a country and already has some warplanes, it still appealed for the West’s help in creating a no-fly zone or providing more fighter jets ^[40]https://theconversation.com/ukraine-wants-a-no-fly-zone-what-does-this-mean-and-would-one-make-any-sense-in-this-war-179282 ^[41]https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-kyiv-business-poland-moscow-2ef1e9c445cf82c20934cc4d1aedc2c1 . Plus, in Russia/Hong Kong’s case, people are normal civilians, so they have no warplanes. If you look at Cuba’s case as I described above, you will find how important air powers were to that mission ^[42]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56808455 . What if giving warplanes to those civilians and letting them fly on their own? If you look at current Ukraine’s case, even now the West only provide some self-defense weapon with no warplanes, Russia has been already warning the West about providing Ukraine weapons ^[43]https://time.com/6170616/russia-ukraine-world-war/ . This may become many people’s reason to say, “Okay, so we can’t support those people’s weapons, otherwise Russia will retaliate against us.” This reason is many Western officials have concerned when talking about providing weapons.

My answer is NO. The point is not that simple. The point is that Russia already threatened to retaliate against the West even if the West only provides self-defense weapons, then Russia will probably retaliate against the West anyway. If so, what’s the difference between that Russia will retaliate against us but we only provide self-defense weapons, and that Russia will retaliate against us because we provide our full support? Russia will retaliate against us anyway. 

So can we follow the old way – help local civilians overthrow their regime without external force by training them as soldiers and providing them weapons? Maybe, but under some conditions. I will propose some conditions which I think that they are the lessons we should learn from the Bays of Pig’s invasion(the Cuba invasion). The conditions are the following: One, provide our air force support as far as the attack needs, not half of it like the support of Bays of Pig invasion. Two, provide all necessary heavy weapons as far as the attack needs, not half of it like the support of the Russia-Ukraine war. 

There are indeed some concerns that will come with this way. For example, although I said above that there is no difference between half support and full support of air force and weapons since Russia/China will probably retaliate against us anyway, what if Russia/China really retaliates against us? My answer is still “go fight it”.  

The first two reasons are as I stated earlier:
First, it doesn’t matter since Russia will retaliate against us anyway.
Second, people are suffering, but what you have done is only give applause to them. Making them be able to fight provides a way to break through this deadlock. I want to add that the diplomatic method, which is the major method the U.N and western countries have used, is still the best and the first way we can/should do if the diplomatic method works. Nevertheless, just as the self-defense topic regarding Caroline doctrine which Professor Pierson discussed in his thesis, he said, “The restrictive rule set out in Caroline is inapplicable in the context of Iraq.  Caroline set out a highly restrictive standard for the anticipatory use of force.  Caroline involved two friendly countries: the United States and Great Britain“. He also said, “The situations in which preemptive self-defense has been used in the modem era are entirely different from the facts in Caroline. Cuba and the Soviet Union in 1962, the Arab states in 1967, Iraq in 1981, Libya in 1986, and Iraq again in 2003 – all these cases involved rogue states. Rogue states have no desire to restrain their aggression against the West or to restrain terrorist groups taking refuge within their borders”. In his thesis, he suggests, “To cope with the danger presented by rogue states a more flexible standard is required than the one set out in Caroline”, in my view, the diplomatic way which the U.N has used is not enough for Russia, China, and some other dictatorship countries in the world. Not only terrorists-lead countries, these dictatorship countries should also be classified as “rogue states”, and we also need a more flexible standard of self-defense than Caroline standard to deal with them; not only a more flexible standard for self-defense is needed, but a more flexible U.N charter and international law for regime change is also needed: For this aspect, what I mean is to allow both regime change directly by external force and regime change indirectly by providing them air force support and heavy weapons. In the earlier paragraph, I mentioned that Professor Pierson talked about modern weapons are so destructive that we can’t accept “the first blow”. Likewise, my view is that modern weapons are too advanced to make local civilians be able to fight against their dictatorship government without holding comparable weapons, military training, and external force help. 

Third, half support of a revolt is bound to fail as you can see in Cuba’s case, but full support of air power and heavy weapons will likely lead to success. We should try. (Note: Cuba’s case is different from the Russia-Ukraine war. Just as I said earlier, Ukraine is a country and has its warplane, just not enough of them so still needs air support of a no-fly zone. Don’t take Ukraine’s case to retort this half-support argument.) 

Forth and the most important point you should note, allowing regime change by external force in international law or providing heavy weapons will make a rogue state less likely to retaliate because that external force or weapons will be a collective effort from all other countries over the world; which country you are going to attack? It will be unwise if you attack all of them. I also would like to propose that the U.N should set up a mechanism of “attack one, you attack all” for all the countries in the world, similar to that of NATO, but we have to add two conditions:
1. This mechanism is invalid if the U.N decides to attack one dictatorship country in order to save local civilians there.
2. “attack one” means attack a country that posts NO threat to the party who starts. 
With this mechanism, a rogue country will be less likely to dare retaliate against other countries, thus eliminating the chance that it will attack a country in the first place. In NATO’s case, I discovered a hole in NATO’s article. If a NATO member attack a third country, and the third country attack back to that NATO member in the NATO member’s land, should NATO activate its Article 5? Should NATO intervene and help that NATO member in NATO’s land when the third country obviously gets bullied by that NATO member?
This question hasn’t been raised, but my speculation is that some experts will say NATO would probably consult with the U.N by determining whether the action of attacking back in NATO member’s land is in accordance with the proportionality and necessity under current international law, it will be similar to the way the U.N evaluated the Middle East matter in the past ^[44]https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51/english/rep_supp6_vol3_art51.pdf .
In addition to this, in the Russia-Ukraine war, Ukraine also did retaliation on Russia’s land(although Ukraine doesn’t admit it in a direct language), and the U.N did not object to the action. I assume the silence is based on two reasons: (1) Common sense – Russia attacked first. (2) The attack from Ukraine did not violate the Caroline doctrine – the element of proportionality and necessity, thus it did not violate current international law even if the current law is disputed as I stated earlier. So it seems that judging by current international law can solve the problem. Nevertheless, the circumstance of a conflict won’t always be that simple. In one article which discussed what if NATO members go to war against each other, it said, “For example, with the quarrel between Turkey and Greece, allied countries can even take sides, like France backing up Greece. A war scenario can raise the question of whether NATO members will also take sides. Since NATO is an intergovernmental organization the sovereignty lies by members, which gives them the choice in what way they want to help an attacked member based on the Article 5 NAT”. This complicated situation is still up for debate in NATO^[45]https://incasumagazine.nl/magazine/in-casu-magazine-nr-24/what-if-nato-members-go-to-war-against-each-other/ . Inferring from this fights-between-members example, I would say that the scenario of fights between a member and third-party countries which is not a member is also likely to lapse into this situation, thus there is a hole in the NATO treaty. Similarly, under the new U.N mechanism I proposed, if the U.N decides to initiate an attack on a dictatorship country, the U.N will be likely to face the challenge that U.N members will take sides. Yet, in most cases, we can use the current voting mechanism to decide which side should we be on and which side should we attack by force. Hence, the updated international law and this new mechanism along with voting eliminate the ambiguous circumstance that NATO faces. The Turkey-Greece conflict remains unresolved under this new mechanism since it’s a rather complicated problem, but in most cases, the action we should take is clear under the updated international law I proposed. 

To conclude Reason Fourth, allowing regime change by external force in international law or providing heavy weapons will make a rogue state less likely to retaliate, because that external force or weapons will be a collective effort from all other countries over the world, and I propose introducing a new mechanism similar to that of NATO but the U.N will decide which party should we support by the updated international law.

See here for Part 2

If you like this article, please share the article to your social media page, so my article can be accessed to more people. 
Please also follow me on social media by clicking the links at below, so my latest articles can be reached out to you.
Follow My Social Media: Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin

Reproduction of the article without permission is prohibited.

Chrissy Slora

The articles published in this website are all written by Chrissy Slora. Chrissy Slora aims to make people learn about how the world can be better and provide her intelligent and wise insight by writing about various topics from technology to issues happening in the world. Follow her on social media: Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin