"The Supreme International Crime": How the U.S. War in Iraq Threatens the Rule of Law

Abstract

WARS OF AGGRESSION ARE MORE DESTRUCTIVE OF HUMAN LIFE, HOPE, AND HABITAT than any other type of crime. For this reason, Tribunal at Nuremberg labeled wars of aggression the supreme international crime, and United Nations Charter requires that nations refrain from aggressive use of military force in their international relations. Although international law is abundantly clear in its condemnation of wars of aggression, same cannot be said for U.S. polity. On November 2, 2004, by a close margin, American voters elected George W. Bush as president of United States, even though he was responsible for a war of aggression that, by time of election, had murdered at least 20,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians (Stein, 2004). In view of grave threat that wars of aggression pose for international peace and security, it is vitally important that criminologists and other social analysts address criminality of U.S.-instigated invasion of Iraq. Toward that end, we will establish validity of following claims: 1. The 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by United States and its allies was a violation of international law. 2. Insofar as invasion and occupation of Iraq took place under auspices of authority, they are crimes. 3. The officials responsible for violations of law pursuant to invasion and occupation of Iraq are guilty of war crimes. 4. The illegal war on Iraq poses a threat to U.N. Charter System and a law-governed approach to world order. Claims such as these are automatically dismissed by Bush administration and its supporters as little more than fulminations from lunatic left (Coulter, 2004). Ad hominem attacks notwithstanding, George W. Bush and those who support his war policy have failed to offer any credible evidence to refute what most international law scholars know: invasion of Iraq was an illegal war of aggression, and those responsible for it are war criminals (Mandel, 2004: McGoldrick, 2004). War supporters claim war was legal, but as we will demonstrate, there is little in their rebuttal that withstands serious criminological scrutiny. The bare-bones version of our argument rests on two propositions. First, Iraq posed no imminent threat to United States. Second, United Nations Security Council did not authorize an invasion of Iraq either to enforce Security Council resolutions or to achieve humanitarian goals. Insofar as threat of imminent attack or United Nations authorization are only conditions under current international law that allow one country to use military force against another, there is a clear prima facie case that invasion of Iraq and associated harms flowing from it constitute war crimes. A prima facie case, however, is not a conclusive case. It must be supported by probative evidence and challenges to it must be addressed. Our goal is to provide this evidence and to shine light of international law on invasion and occupation of Iraq. As criminologists we begin by addressing nature of crime as our central warrant for analyzing Iraq war as crime. Defining State Crime In his 1988 Presidential Address to American Society of Criminology, William Chambliss defined crime as acts defined by law as criminal and committed by officials in pursuit of their job as representatives of state (1989: 184). This definition has three key characteristics. First, it directs attention to structural and organizational basis of crime by emphasizing that these crimes are committed by officials in furtherance of organizational goals of state. Second, it proposes that analyses of crime must be grounded in a legal framework that enables us to clearly distinguish between legitimate and illegal uses of power in furtherance of goals. …