Legality and the use of force in international affairs

Afghanistan

In late 1979 and early 1980, Soviet troops entered Afghanistan in order to prop up the communist government of that country. Whether this was at the invitation of the government of Afghanistan or not, the action did not have the backing of the UN's mandate therefore, in terms of international law, it was illegal.

In many ways the USSR's involvement in Afghanistan was a mirror image of what happened in Vietnam; the roles of the two super powers simply being reversed.

The Soviet troops only controlled a limited number of “strategic” places. They tried to eliminate the Mujahidin's civilian support by bombing. The Mujahidin, the Muslim fighters opposed to the communist's rule, were supplied by the US with shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles that effectively stopped the Soviet's use of helicopter gunships. The communist government of Afghanistan fell soon after the Soviet troops left in 1989.

The Gulf War

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in July 1990 it was not only a flagrant disregard of international law (Article 2, par.4), but it also had serious implications for the predictability of oil supplies to the industrialised world. Intense diplomatic efforts failed to persuade Iraq to withdraw its troops. Eventually, on January 15, 1991, a Coalition Force totalling some 795 000 troops, removed the Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

This military action was in complete accordance with international law. Security Council resolution 678 (November 29, 1990), authorised "... Member States co-operating with Kuwait ... to use all necessary means ... to restore international peace and security in the area ...". This resolution was supported by four of the permanent members as well as eight of the non-permanent members. Only Cuba and Yemen voted against while China, the fifth permanent member, abstained.

The Second Gulf War

In March 2003, the USA and Britain sent forces to Iraq. A number of other countries, such as Australia, Spain, Poland and Denmark also sent smaller contingents. The reason for the invasion of Iraq was ostensibly to prevent, or to get rid of, weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was reputed to have (although the UN inspectors were unable to discover any).

Although the government of the United Kingdom tried very hard to get a second resolution in the Security Council, the invasion by the occupying forces was unlawful, as it did not have a UN mandate. This fact allows other countries, covertly and indirectly, to come to the aid of those who are fighting the invaders.

Finally, returning to the original statement by Karl von Clausewitz that "war is a continuation of politics by other means", there are two serious reservations regarding his dictum. The first one relates to the development of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. If war is a continuation of politics, or rather, a continuation of policies of a government by other means, than how can the unpredictable consequences of those weapons on all the combatants in a conflict be said to be compatible with a pursuit of a policy?

But even if we discount the possibility, that a modern, complex society (the emphasis is on all three of those words) would resort to the use of those weapons, there still remains the fact that, since Clausewitz made his famous observation, there has been an extra-ordinary increase in the extent and in the complexity of international treaties. As he was insistent on the lawful use of force, he would probably rephrase his famous dictum if he was writing now: "War is a continuation of politics by other means provided that the implications of international law are fully taken into consideration."

That international law is embodied in The Charter of the United Nations, which remains like a beacon that guides the deliberations of governments in their international affairs. Even though it is imperfect, if it is ignored, it can be both perilous and costly to even the most powerful nations.