![Law.com]()
Judging the War
American Lawyer Media: 03-25-2003
The war with Iraq is on. And so are the legal debates. International law experts
are questioning the Bush administration's legal justification for entering into
the war and examining whether the president can really try Iraqis who destroy
their country's oil wells during the fighting. And when it's all over, will the
U.N. be able to satisfy the claims for compensation from businesses,
governments and individuals damaged by the conflict?
Bush Doctrine: New Kind of Threat?
Legal Times
The
Bush administration's legal case for attacking Iraq is causing considerable
consternation in the international bar. Under the U.N. Charter, use of force
against another country is legal in self-defense or by authorization of the
Security Council. The administration has cited both to legitimize the war. But
most controversial is the notion that the attack is justified under the Bush
doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense.
'Scorched Earth' as a Wartime Tactic
The National Law Journal
When he gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to get out of Iraq, President Bush warned
Iraqi soldiers and civilians that they could be tried as war criminals if they
destroy oil wells. That a nation's destruction of its own oil wells could
qualify as a war crime might surprise those who recall that "scorched
earth" tactics are as old as war itself. But some international law experts
say it has legal merit.
New War May Mean More Claims for UNCC
Texas Lawyer
|
![]()
|
The war in Iraq could
mean more work for the United Nations Compensation Commission, which has been
winding down its evaluation of claims from businesses, governments and
individuals who allege they suffered damages as a result of the first Gulf War.
U.S. lawyers who worked for the UNCC say the new war could jeopardize the
speedy resolution of old claims or produce a whole new batch of claims
|
<<image001.gif>>
<<image002.jpg>>
<<image003.jpg>>
