Abstract

This paper summarizes the legal aspects of the military intervention of the U.S. and her Allies in Iraq in March 2003. Basically, two main perspectives can be identified: First, a more or less formal point of view underlines the United States' breach of traditional international law due to the lack of authorization to use force by the United Nations' Security Council or on behalf of self-defence. Second, a more pragmatic, policy-orientied view emphasizes the problems of applying traditional concepts of self-defence and preventive war to the new conditions of international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Different interpretations of United Nations resolutions concerning Iraq since 1991 are discussed, as well as the possibilities of legal justifications of the removal of the Iraqi government by the U.S. and the UK. Whichever legal position one adheres to, the war in Iraq demonstrates that it is necessary to reevaluate and specifiy the international rules on the legitimate use of force in a changed global environment.