This War is Illegal, but so is International Law

An arrogant President
President Bush continued to beat the drums for war in his latest news conference (warning journalists to now leave Iraq) and Tony Blair debated with several youth on an MTV program in which he stated:
"If there was a veto applied by one of the countries with a veto, or by countries that I thought were applying the veto unreasonably, in those circumstances we would (go ahead)"

We have also witnessed several UK and French professors of international law writing to Downing Street and high profile western newspapers declaring that there was no justification for war whatsoever, under international law.

At this point it is worth reflecting on exactly what international law is, its foundations and how it is applied in the eyes of non-Muslims, before examining the Islamic viewpoint of international law as a concept and its reality.

The academics from Oxford, Cambridge, London School of Economics, SOAS, UCL and the University of Paris in their letter highlighted that the UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions: either individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack, and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. They went on to state: "There are currently no grounds for a claim to use such force in self-defence. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law. Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances."

The UN charter is also explicit in forbidding any military action without express assent, the vetoing of a resolution, or majority vote opposing action, however unpalatable to the US and UK clearly would indicate that such assent is absent.

The professors of law also highlighted that the UK has vetoed 32 resolutions over the past 58 years and any opposition to this would have infringed their rights under article 27 as a permanent member of the security council, furthermore stating that even if authorisation was forthcoming: "A lawful war is not necessarily a just, prudent or humanitarian war".

Whilst many would read the words of the Law professors and be happy that they highlight the hyprocrisy of those that say they are defending international law whilst they trample all over it. Muslims (and non-Muslims) should think more deeply and understand that not only do we see gross hypocrisy in their drive to control their interests, but that the whole notion of international law as defined in the West is fundamentally flawed. Whether it is the belief that a group of nations can correctly regulate the world without major powers dominating the weak, or the absurd notion of a "veto" for 5 of the most powerful, the bribing of weak states to vote for the superpower position, or indeed the creeping removal of all forms of national sovereignty explicit in the way UN/international law is currently upheld, we should all have grave concerns and work to build public opinion against the very notion of "International law" as currently defined.

The flaws in a system which was effectively drawn up by the "victors" of WWII (Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill - the initial signatories to the UN Charter) has been apparent to Muslims for many decades. Those deceived into thinking that resolutions demanding that Israel return stolen land or that the peoples of Kashmir have a right to choose their future, have seen the true value of those resolutions (they are still waiting, and are dying in large numbers at the hands of oppressive occupiers). That America has the gall to criticise those that would dare to vote against them, whilst they have been the most prolific in vetoing dozens of unanimous votes (often against Israeli brutality) highlights that the system itself is unsound from its basis. Yet people continue to cling to it as though it is some mystical saviour willing to defend the weak.

The current conflict highlights the clash of permanent council members interests over Iraq (to defend their current agreements and relationship - France and Russia, or to invade and take complete control - US/UK), and is not a debate over what is right or wrong. The notion of an international law is unworkable as currently designed, the following extract traces the development of international law from its roots in Christian law (from the 16th century) and its opposition to a growing Islamic state. It also correctly highlights the notion of international norms of behaviour and administrative treaties that really should govern international relations, and which can only be applied via public opinion and moral obligation (and not by force).

Jamal Harwood
Khilafah.com Journal
11 March 2003