Was the Gulf war a just war?

Résumé du document

Just two days after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1991, Saddam Hussain became a new threat to the world order. Saddam Hussain, who had deliberately violated the international rules by aggressing Kuwait, one of his Arab neighbours as a result of which the war against Iraq became inevitable. Ten years later have been passed and yet the situation in the Gulf region remains unsolved. Ten years have been passed and yet the situation in the Gulf region remains unsolved. The people in Iraq have been suffering for more than a decade and Saddam Hussain who remained in power is suspected of having pursued his nuclear intentions.

Extraits

[...] First, what is a “just cause” ? How can we define it ? In the tradition, four cases can justify the war : the intervention on behalf of innocents who are aggressed ; the need for punishment ; the war ; the defensive war. Thus, for a just cause to exist, the purpose of the war must be done to redress in some way a wrong done by the enemy. Yet this broad notion is no longer satisfactory nowadays given that both sides can easily believe themselves in the right. [...]

[...] But despite such a tragic incident, the actual number of civilians killed was remarkably limited13. Even controversial, this seems to have been “correct”. Yet, the most important point is maybe the effect of the war on society in general rather that the direct attacks. To illustrate this aspect, I will take the case of the embargo. Food especially was an area of real vulnerability. For is it morally right to deny food to a population in order to put pressure on its leadership ? Certainly not. [...]

[...] Was the Gulf war a just war ? Introduction waging of war is just only if there is a just cause, all peaceful channels have been tried and have failed and there is a reasonable chance of success”. The US Catholic Bishops in this letter of 1983 used seven criteria for a decision to wage war : “just cause”, war declared by the competent authority, right intentions, comparative justice, last resort, probability of success, and proportionality1. Even though the Bishops' letter had been written during the Cold war –implying the danger of a nuclear war, that is, a total one-, the very concept is still valid when it comes to analysing the Gulf War the Berlin Wall fell two days ago and the new international order is threatened by one man, Saddam Hussain, who has deliberately broken the international rules by aggressing one of his Arab neighbours –Kuwait. [...]

[...] The notion of proportionality is a moral principle applied to the restraint of war. As concerns the jus ad bellum, it means that a “just must not cause expected harm that exceeds the expected good it brings about. In the case of the Gulf conflict, the question is the following one : Is the military action worth it? The answer is clearly affirmative on one point the conservation of the new peaceful order since the end of the Cold War. [...]

[...] As a result, I have tried to answer the question : what extent the Gulf War is a LEGAL rather than what extent is it a “just For, if it seems difficult, if not impossible to define if a war is today owing to the potential of destruction available, it is possible to say whether it is legal according to the international law. The Gulf War, to that point, was a legal war. Let us trust Kelsen when asserting : “Whatever is considered in the sense of international morality has at least a tendency of becoming international Endnotes 1 Kaptein Henning-A. Frantzen, the Gulf War shows that Just War Principles are a necessary part in our thinking about international affairs” http://www.pacem.no/1998/1/frantz.doc 2 United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 3314. [...]