The war against Iraq has shattered trust in the validity of law in international relations. Among specialists in international law there is far-reaching agreement that this war was not compatible with the law.
There was no mandate from the UN Security Council; unlike in Kosovo, the military action took place even against the declared will of the Council. The war also cannot be based on the right of self-defence since there was no attack by Iraq and no immediate threat of one.
And finally the war also cannot be justified as a 'humanitarian action to liberate the Iraqi people'. If this extended interpretation applied to the anyway contentious institution of humanitarian intervention, then it would give free reign worldwide to 'wars of liberation' to assert human rights and democracy. There would be little left of the ban on the use of force in international law, upon whose basis there is no longer any right to wage war.
In view of this clear legal finding, the old question of the relationship of power and law in international relations arises under a new portent. The war against Iraq is not the 'normal case' of a breach of international law. Rather, it stands for a new hegemonic claim by the USA, if necessary also against the will of the community of nations, to safeguard its national security interests far in advance of possible threats.
