Especially since we wrote the law. If we don't follow the rules we set, we can't expect other countries to do so. Right now, the message of our invasion of Iraq is that the rule of law is that we don't have to follow it, but we'll beat the crap of anybody else who violates it. That will work so long as we have the upper hand, but even now the Koreans and Iranians know we're stretched, and we have no moral basis for appeal to the rest of the world to keep them in check. We do have practical basis, but we've sacrificed our goodwill. It's gone.

The UN did not pass a resolution to attack Iraq! Therefore the war is not legal! If the US wernt a nuclear power the UN would have almost certainly attacked them just as they did with yugoslavia

BUSH does not care about about violating anything nor anybody. In 4 years, he will get his presidential pension and the rest of us will continue to get the body bags.

The Iraq War had more legal justification than just about any other conflict (e.g., Clinton's Bosnia and Kosovo interventions). In fact, the best answer to people who say why Iraq when North Korea and Iran were further along in WMDs is that there was obviously an international mandate for action against Iraq. It was in violation of more than a dozen UN resolutions, and it had broken the terms of the 1991 cease-fire.

saddam hussein violated more international laws in a single day than the united states has in the last 25 years.

Hang international law. Only Congress has the authority to make war and they have abdicated this to the president since ww2. There's a reason why the constitution wants congress to have this power and not the pres. It's too easy for one person to want to use this enormous power to fix some perceived problem in a quick and overwhelming way. Cooler heads may prevail over a murky decision in a large legislative body and a real need (for war) would be obvious.

How U.N. resolutions were passed before we did anything?

Thank God for Moosekarloff...this is by far the best and most profound understanding I've read on this topic. I am in complete agreement.

You can't violate tsomething that doesn't exist. The presence of such (and I mean one with any real power) would be the greatest detriment to state sovereignty ever seen. Individual cultures with self-autonomy should be left to their independence if they so choose, nor should there be any real emergence of the ridiculous notion of an international government with supreme authority over national governments. What a joke. Just let countries be countries again.

There are quite a few people on this list saying that there's no such thing as international law. Indeed the international system is anarchical in nature, but yet we can all agree that there are certain norms which govern international behavior, this simply cannot be dismissed. While there is no single legislative body that can make international law, there are nonetheless very important normative rules that dominate international decision making. Custom and treaty are the two main tools used in international law. A lot of countries have the same kinds of law; law is made when enough people acknowledge that it is good for the community at large; that makes customary law. Since business is done internationally, jurisdiction has been established across national boundaries to cover trademark law and yes even anti-trust laws in certain situations. The international community is guided by the principles of just war, human rights etc. Treaties, which are a binding part international law, are made by two or more countries and they govern behavior between the parties involved. There are definable rules that govern international relations; there are courts like the ICC and ICJ that can act intercede in cases of international conflict. While case law is fluid here, customary law is definitely guided by precedent. Yes, international law is broken all the time, but if you break the law, you may have to pay for it. How many times do people get away with breaking domestic laws? I sped on the expressway on the way home today; I broke the law technically and I didn't get caught. Law cannot be perfectly enforced. Nonetheless, international law is a guiding principle of international relations, you need it to establish should semblance of order in an otherwise chaotic world.

This listing is deceptive. There is no such thing as International Law. I don't appreciate the arrogance of someone trying to make us assume something exists when it doesn't.

How can you brake something that dosent exist?

Since there is NO SUCH THING as "international law", how can anyone violate it? Is there some sort of international government I was unaware of? The term "international law" is a misnomer perpetuated by the UN which serves to confuse issues of national security, and the rights of free nations to defend themselves. How often do other nations besides the US appeal to the UN for the "approval" to protect themselves? Answer: they do not, and never have. UN has supposed guidelines that they WISH were international laws, but the fact is that since there is no international government, there are NO international laws. There are treaties and agreements between nations, yes... but they are usually trade agreements between free and semi free nations. If the UN professes to have international laws, what about allowing any dictatorship who comes along to join the UN? What of Libya being in charge of their "human rights" commission? The UN allows anyone to join. the only criteria is that they are a NATION; not a FREE nation, just a nation. This means that any individual-hating Communist regime or murderous criminal dictatorship has the SAME rights as free nations like the US, UK, Canada, Germany, France, etc etc. Are these dictatorships going to enforce some kind of international law against free nations? By what right? Who elected them? Be very careful when using a term like international law... it does NOT exist.

Sorry to inform you ignorant droolers out there, but there are several types of international law that are binding and concrete, and are not just some nebulous abstraction. Trade agreements and embargo sanctions are international law, and so are treaties, non-agression agreements and formal alliances. Intellectual property protections, i.e., copyrights, patents and trademarks, when extended into markets foreign to the initiating party, are also subject to binding international law and regulation. So droolers, you're making statements regarding a subject about which you have no knowledge or understanding, and hence, you're wrong again. Or, as usual. Secondly, there is every indication, predicated on evidence unearthed since the beginning of Handjob's Military Misadventure until this very day (see the 9/25/03 front page of The New York Times), that the Iraqis did adhere to U.N. sanctions: no WMD, nuclear development program or irrefutable ties to terrorism in general, and 9/11 in specific, have come to light, and probably never will. In this, the sanctions did work, yet Handjob and the rest of the yahoo saber-rattlers went ahead anyway and trashed a third world country that was not, and essentially would never be a significant threat to us. Handjob and the boys went after a hot-button, sitting duck target and the droolers scratched themselves and said, "Duh. God Bless America!!!" The unilateral aggression of our country against Iraq, at the very least, was a violation of international consensus, international civility, international order and international ethics. In this, it was a grave and irresponsible action on the part of our so-called "leadership" and a gross insult to the rest of the world. But what did the Handjob Administration care about these issues six months ago when there was oil to be grabbed, Cold War retreads on Bush's team who needed to be justified, a drooler constituency in this country to pacify and a noncomprehending American public to further confuse and mystify? Six months ago the handjob Administration told the U.N. to drop dead, told the West Alliance (which really no longer exists as a result of Handjob's rash and irresponsible actions) to drop dead and told the rest of the world to drop dead. If you weren't with us, you were against us, a typical simplistic, reductive and infantile conservative ethos, and what's more, if you weren't with us, you were unAmerican, a Saddam-lover, etc. Well, Handjob failed to assemble a credible coalition in our trashing of Iraq, we ended up biting off more than we could chew, and the end result is yesterday Handjob went to the U.N. and told the rest of the world "Help us." Despite the fact that the rest of the world foresaw the likely negative fallout from this major blunder and wouldn't go along, despite the fact we took the rest of the world to task for their lack of support for this idiotic decision, despite the fact we will not admit to failure or to making serious mistakes, underestimations and exaggerations of threat, and despite the fact that we will not apologize and will only give the rest of the world cursory influence on decisions made in post-war Iraq, it's now necessary for the rest of the world to commit troops to harm's way and send billions of $$$ to clean up the mess the U.S. made? You know what the U.N., the former Western Alliance and the rest of the world is likely to say? "Drop dead." The Handjob Administration opened up a can of worms, a Pandora's Box, big time (as that cardiac cripple and blustering, arrogant moron D. Cheney would say), and now needs to be bailed out by the same parties we solidly dissed just a few months ago. This makes our country look weak in the eyes of the world, and demonstrates that our so-called "leadership" is clueless, reckless, irresponbile and not at all deserving of trust or respect. Thanks alot Handjob!!! Thanks alot you droolers who still don't get it and continue to support this worthless sack of crap and his minions!!!

A lot of people on here are saying that there is no such thing as 'international law'. It's mule-headed arrogance like this that makes people hate us so much. Just because this country has never had anything but contempt for international law does not mean it does not exist. After every single war of the last fifty years, all captured territory has been returned to its original country because, by international law, no national borders may ever be redrawn again. It is likewise against international law for one country, acting alone, to pre-emptively invade another country, no matter what the reason. Even if the invaded country has violated the law, it is not up to the US to act as judge and executioner. The US has broken international law left and right since the origin of the concept, but never so brazenly and arrogantly as in the 'war' on Iraq.

What kind of question is this?

This is a clear violation of international law, or at the very least a dangerous new precedent. First off a country has the right to defend itself, but that is invoked if it is attacked or there is a direct threat. There was NO direct threat from Iraq, there was only a possibility that they had chemical/biological weapons coupled with a possibility that if they have them they would somehow use them against us. So far all of Iraq is taken over and we haven't found anything resembling a chemical weapon nor were any used against us, and we were able to acomplish this in three weeks. Now, how does a country that's military had been declining for over a decade to the point that we could ride over them in three weeks, that even if attacked won't use chemical weapons and might not even have them pose a threat to us? Furthermore, this creates a dangerous new precedent because now we have established two things: one: that countries do not need UN approval to launch a legitamate war. two: that a legitamate war can be defined as defensive based off the idea that something could possibly occur if the situation is right. How far can that be taken? Under that premise North Korea could invade South Korea because they fear that if aliens visit Earth they will help the South Koreans and attack the North. More practical, North Korea could invade South Korea off the premise that the South is planning an invasion of the North once the North is weaker, so they should attack while the North is still strong to thwart those efforts. This is both a compelling reason against war and dangerous consequence of it.

One of the major reasons we started this war is because of resolution 1441 being broken. Once the war started and POWs were taken, the US reminded the rest of the world that international agreements about treating POW's needed to be adhered to as well (something outlined in the Geneva Convention) I'm glad the US did raise Cain about that because treating POW's poorly by any country is wrong and a violation of above said agreement. That being said, I have a problem with the US being all talk and no walk. How many UN violations has the US commited? Why is it that if an international agreement is in the US's favor, we'll follow it no problem, but if not, then screw it? Case in point, Guantanamo bay. Sure there's some terrorist bastards there, but there are also plenty of prisoners who have not been charged with anything, nor found to have any worthwhile information, yet they continue to sit in a squat cell with no acess to legal help or their families- and it's been over a year. If this happened to US citizens in another country, you better believe we would already be at war with that country! Am I wrong? I doubt it, and if you think differently, mail me 'cause I'd love to hear your logic! Really, I want to back the president and be proud of my country, but it's hard when there are issues like this. The US has got to stop thinking it's above International agreements when convenient, yet raising a stink when it's not so convenient. No wonder the rest of the world is so annoyed.

First of all, like many have already stated, there is really no such thing as international law. Also, I like the comcept of humanity and no one going to war against anyone. The problem with that philosophy is that it's not realistic. Mankind on its own merrit will never ever accomplish true universal peace. It will never happen. There will always be strife. That's is why one must defend himself through war (as a last resort of course). I don't like that thought, but it is needed. Otherwise, those who wish to hurt mankind will take advantage of the harmless and the world their own playground or killing field. Also, it's not preemptive action when you have proven facts that a dictator (Saddam) has harbored and supplied terrorist groups all throughout the world, and that those same groups attacked your homeland (9/11) and other countries throughout the world. This the war on terror. In other words, it's the war against TERRORISM THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

Out of all the compelling arguments both for and against our invasion of Iraq, this is the one that carries the most weight for me. As everybody knows, there really is no such thing as International Law. Countries are sovereign, and they can act pretty much however they please, depending on their tolerance for pressure from the international community. That being said, there are general principles of humanity that, if adhered to, make the world a better place. One of these principles is the idea that if every country agreed not to preemptively attack any other country, by definition, there could be no war. In such a system, any government that chose to break this code would and should be met with immediate annihlation. In this particular case, by preemptively invading a sovereign country, the US has set a precedent that preemptive action CAN be justified. So if you are India and you are convinced that Pakistan is bent on your destruction, why wouldn't you preemptively strike in order to defend yourself? And why wouldn't Israel try and preemptively strangle Palestine when they know that the many Palestinians yearn for the destruction of Israel? In this historical and political context, we have set a dangerous, destabilizing precedent by ignoring the UN and preemptively invading a sovereign nation - despite the short term benefit of removing a monster from power.

The major international law being broken is that it is not legal to attack another country. No country has the right to attack another without justification. The war ended two weeks ago and theres still no evidence of WMD. Dont get me wrong, Saddamm probably had them but still he was no threat to anyone but himself. If he had used them, retaliation would have been swift and brutal. He's not that stupid. The US can not claim self defense because Iraq has been rotting for the past 10 years ocasionally coming back to the publics consciousness every few years - until after sep 11 when suddenly all the attention was focused back on Saddam. Saddam obvoiusly had nothing to do with 9/11. Bin laden has professed to hating Saddam because he is not a strict muslim and has non-muslims in his parliment. So the US has broken international law by attacking a country and ousting its leadership. And no, I'm not a Saddam appologist. Just like Iraq had no right to attack Quait 13 years ago, the US had no justification for attacking Iraq. Pre-emption should not be a foreign policy tool in the 21st century. If the US continues this way, the 21st Century will be as bloody as the 20th.

I really don't see any international laws being broken here. If "international law" allows 6 Million Jews to be persecuted, 58,000 Americans to die in Vietnam and millions of people the world over live under murderous, tyrannical rule, can it be said that we are violating international lawlessness?