Originally Posted by needforspeed
The accidental killing of civilians in war may not be illegal, but it is certainly immoral. Morality has nothing to do with international law.
It's also worth noting that the war on terror - including the invasion of afghanistan and iraq - is not a 'war' as legally defined. No declaration of war has been made by either side.
No EVERYBODY did not believe that Iraq retained chemical and bio weapons capability.
The chief UN weapons inspector (Hans Blix) stated prior to the invasion that he did not believe that there were WMD's in Iraq. This statement seems to have been correct.
That's why the invasion was not supported by a UN Resolution, was not backed by the majority of the G8 and was not approved by the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council.
The inadvertant killing of non-combatants is not considered immoral under the Just War theory. You are correct that this has no bearing on international law but sure made a difference to me.
Can you tell me where you find a legal definition of war? The US Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war but makes no provisions for how such a declaration is to be worded. Both operations, in Afghanistan and Iraq, were clearly provided for by the Congress. Does calling the resolution an Authorization to Use Military Force rather than a Declaration of War change its constitutional character or it impact under international law?
The UN Security Council passed UNSCR 1441 in Nov 2002 unanimously. This resolution found Iraq to be in material breach of it obligations under UNSCR 687. Under 1441, the Security Council demanded Iraq provide, "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles..." and to cooperate “immediately, unconditionally and actively” with UN ispectors(UNMOVIC). The final report by UNMOVIC submitted prior to the invasion found that Iraq had NOT complied with the requirements of 1441 and therefore Iraq remained in material breach of 687. From a legal standpoint, no further UN resolution was required to resume the activities authorized by UNSCR 678 since Iraq had not complied with UNSCR 687 which suspended those activities. As a political matter, many world leaders like Tony Blair wanted another UN resolution to provide domestic political cover but the lack of one does not equate to a violation of the UN Charter or any other treaty to which the US is obligated.