The legality and validity of the Persian Gulf war as authorized by the united nation’s security council resolutions
Date
2020-11
Authors
Harsimran, Kaur Panesar
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Strathmore University
Abstract
In assessing the Persian Gulf War in terms of ius ad bellum and the jus cogens norms, the implied authorisation provided by the UN Security Council resolutions exhibits considerable ambiguity in its role as a peacekeeper in the international arena. Therefore, this study will provide an in-depth analysis of these resolutions, which were considered as the legitimate basis for the rationales made by the Bush and Blair administration in the justification of the Gulf war. Further facilitating the view that the UN System on the general prohibition on the use of force is used as a mechanism by powerful Western States to impose imperialism on
Middle Eastern countries.
Description
The international community assigns prominence to jus cogens (also known as peremptory norms), bestowing them with upmost priority, it is superior to other rules of international law and no derogation is permitted. Conflict with a peremptory norm renders a treaty void.1 The foreplay between the Security Council and peremptory norms is evident from its resolutions through which it manifests its decisions. The use or threat of force is prohibited2 and has a jus cogens status, this subsists within customary international law as evident from an opinion juris as to the legal obligation from refraining to use force by States.