Facts Assume that without receiving a specific authorization from Security Council to employ force in order to effect Iraqs

removal from Kuwait, the United States initiates a full-scale air non-nuclear missile attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait, an attack so devastating that Iraq immediately sues for peace. The U.S responds by saying that it will accept nothing but unconditional surrender. The assault continues. Saddam Husseins various bunkers are targeted and eventually he is caught in one of them and killed. Following his death, a junta of generals and bath Party officials offer the countrys unconditional surrender. United States forces together with those of certain other countries occupy Iraq. Then the United States announces it will implement the several decisions as soon as possible. The government of Russia announces that it has grave doubts about the legality of the U.S proposals. It raises the following points. First, that having supported Iraq in its war against Iran commenced by an open act of aggression and by having colluded in the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the U.S had induced Iraq to believe that Washington did not regard Charter norms on the use of force to be operative in the Middle East. And in event, as a consequence of the practice of states over the past thirty years, the rules governing the use of force are so unclear that no one can be prosecuted criminally for alleged violations thereof without fundamental notions of due process. Second, the United States itself engaged in aggressive war when it attacked Iraq without specific authorization from the Security Council. Third, that the dismemberment of Iraq would constitute a grave violation of international law.

The United States agrees to submit these questions to the International Court of Justice. You are legal assistant to the President of the Court. He asks you prepare a memorandum of law analyzing the points raised by the Russia and indicating how you think he should find with respect to each of them. PREPARE THE MEMORANDUM.

Issues A. Has the general norms regarding the use of force been vague that no state has been criminally prosecuted for alleged violations thereof without violating fundamental notions of due process. B. Whether the US was engaging in an aggressive war when it attacked Iraq without a specific authorization from the Security. C. Whether the dismemberment of Iraq from the UN tantamount a grave violation of international law.

Answers to the Issues I. As the world grows, states develop. Foreign policy has been a major role in state relationship with other state. War has become a basic criterion and a controlling factor on states actions and movements. With regards to the international norms on the legality of the use of force, it has been constant within the standard of the framework of the United Nations Charter. The UN Charter provides the specific remedies and actions to be taken in case there is a violation of such norm without violating due process. However, the rules regarding the judicial proceedings in terms of litigating violations of such norms are not binding upon all states.

A clear example of this is the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The jurisdiction and authority of the ICJ in hearing and deciding cases does not have a full binding effect on all members of the United Nations. Moreover, in order for the Court to acquire jurisdiction on parties over a case, states must submit a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the ICJ. It strongly observes the rule of reciprocity in which a state has only to respond to a suit brought against the ICJ to the extent only that the other state has accepted jurisdiction of the ICJ. And even if the states accept the courts jurisdiction the judgment of the ICJ is never final and binding upon the parties. In totality, the norms of international law with regards to the use of force is still within the framework as vested in the UN Charter and is binding upon all states, even those non-member states. However, the procedure in litigation of cases involving violations of such norms does not have a compulsory effect upon all of its members. On the other hand, despite the fact that the decisions are not binding between parties, the aggrieved party can seek for help to the UN Security Council that can make necessary

recommendations involving the case. However, another dilemma is to be answered, what if the violating state is a permanent member of the UN Security Council? Where are the possible avenues where the aggrieved party can seek enforcement of judgement of the ICJ? I personally cannot answer such dilemma. Perhaps, the UN Charter should be amended to address such dilemma. II. It is clear from the above given facts that the act made by United States in attacking Iraq without the full support of the other

permanent members of the Security Council tantamount to an aggressive war making US an unlawful aggressor. The United States can be held liable for any damage and they are obliged to do and make reparations. However, who are we to question the authority of peace and security matters? Who can compel the United States to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the ICJ? It may only be possible when all of the remaining permanent members of the UN Security Council do appropriate actions to compel US to submit make her submit, perhaps waging war with US? If it happens there will be total anarchy in the world. III. The dismemberment of Iraq would not constitute a violation of international law. Under Art. 3 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States political existence of the state is independent of recognition of other states. The dismemberment of Iraq would not change its present status as an independent state. It does not affect the capacity of Iraq to enter into relations with other states. It does not also entitle Iraq to freely make actions that will be contrary to the fundamental norms of international law. It cannot do actions that will serve as a threat to fellow states and she is still subject under the jurisdiction of the UN Security Council and the ICJ in the case of Reparation, since it is binding within the international community.