They also argued that there was need to liberate the Iraq people from the oppressive regime which was not democratic and was abusing the human rights of its citizens (Armstrong, Farrell, & Maiguashca, 2005).
Democratic norms are in most cases not perceived to be relevant to the foreign and international policies of a country. However, in the consideration of the democracy framework of various governments a number of critical questions arise. The first one is about respect of the international law by a country, basing on the fact that such a government cannot easily acquire the democratic tribute in regard to the rule of law locally if it is capable of violating the rule of law in a foreign country. The international law is much vaguer compared to the domestic one, but majority of the international lawyers are in agreement that Iraq's invasion by both the United States of America and Britain was a blatant breach on the charter of the United Nations. The charter is very clear and stipulates that armed forces can only be used in a case of self defense or when the United Nations Security Council explicitly authorizes use of such force (Vickers, 2004).
Tony Blair in attacking Iraq had complete disregard of the United Nation's charter in fact, his speech in 1999 whi...
ve failed to implement them and hence country's like Britain and the United States of America, have to bear some burden like invading Iraq since they have a sense of world responsibility. In this case he was actually implying that his government had the right to invade a sovereign government like that of Iraq and thus participate in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations. The British government was in this case very biased as it even chose the resolutions to enforce and which ones to leave out, which by any standards cannot be viewed as respecting international rule of law (Allawi, 2007).
The British government argued that it was not important to wait the United Nations to pass resolutions that would explicitly authorize the use of force in Iraq as this could mean taking a back seat and watch as a humanitarian crisis takes center stage in Iraq as it happened in Kosovo. By basing their argument on the Kosovo humanitarian catastrophe the British government justified the removal by force of the Iraq's undemocratic regime, arguing that the Iraq government was actually violating human rights of its citizens (Beck, Grande, & Cronin, 2007).
The second question evolves around Britain's consistency on its quest to support human rights and democracy in foreign countries. When the human rights and democracy are used as base of justifying morality of a government's policies then consistency is considered to be a vital factor. Such arguments when applied selectively loose meaning and the weight they ought to carry. Although, largely believed that the more powerful and democratic countries can support human rights and democracy on foreign countries, they cannot achieve their objectives by use of force, since that would in fact, mean violation of the same human rights
The Iraq war was initiated by the United States of America on the grounds that Iraq was being ruled by a very oppressive regime and that its people needed to be liberated from it. They were later joined by other countries such as Britain, the American's invaded Iraq since their foreign policies allowed them to do so although they were not in agreement with the resolutions of the United Nations which is mandated to intervene on international matters…
George W. Bush and his supporters insist on the importance of fighting terror with war. Bush decided to deploy military force, uphold democracy in the Middle East. Bush offered liberal wartime powers to the commander in chief. Critics of Bush, however, questioned the usefulness of ‘war on terror’.
Same is the case with the Iraq invasion under the United States and the coalition of 49 countries that started in March 20, 2003. The Iraq war, also called, Occupation of Iraq, the Second Gulf War, or Operation Iraqi Freedom by the US military, was alleged on the grounds of various accusations against Iraq.
Iraq is located in the western part of Asia and it shares a border with Jordan, Iran Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Syria. It has a small coastline of 58 kilometres. Baghdad is the countries largest city and it plays the role of being its capital city with a population of 30,399,572. The other large cities of Iraq include Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk and Irbil.
The UN charter stipulates clearly the procedures that should be followed by a country to perpetrate coercion or violence to another state. The UN charter is the only legitimate basis that a country can use to attack another sovereign state since it has been reached through consensus by the member states forming the United Nations.
Up to date neither the United Nations nor the US- led forces have found any weapons of mass destruction. Thus, Iraq became the forefront of political debate and controversy. The Iraqi conflict can be argued upon many dimensions, but for the purpose of this study, paradigms, or basic frameworks, of International Relations will be reviewed and analyzed.
and terrorist groups(Talbott and Chanda,2001;Chomsky,2002;Wolin,2002).The United States foreign policy could no longer simply address state actors and disregard non state actors; it could no longer support , or turn a blind eyes towards , oppressive, authoritarian and
In 1914, the British army invaded Mesopotamia, and established military order during the First World War. The subjugation of present day Iraq was not the initial intent of the British, rather their primary objective was the security of the British military position in the Persian Gulf.
As Iraq represented the cradle of civilization to the ancient world, it has represented the cradle of conflict in the post – Cold war world. For many people born in the peaceful countries of the west or in the troubles states of Near East at the end of the 20th century, Iraq was their formative experience of war in the modern world