Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHarsimran, Kaur Panesar
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-20T22:15:45Z
dc.date.available2021-12-20T22:15:45Z
dc.date.issued2020-11
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11071/12427
dc.descriptionThe 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.en_US
dc.description.abstractIn 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.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherStrathmore Universityen_US
dc.titleThe legality and validity of the Persian Gulf war as authorized by the united nation’s security council resolutionsen_US
dc.typeLearning Objecten_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record