revistaieee7

Alfonso Iglesias Velasco and Anass Gouyez Ben Allal
The role of the United Nations...
vember 2002, Resolution 1441 (2002). 46 This step marked the last opportunity given
to the Iraqi government to comply with the disarmament requirements laid down by
international treaties and Security Council resolutions.
Resolution 1441 was the last to be issued on the matter before the invasion of Iraq
by the US-led coalition in the spring of 2003. The nature of this resolution gave rise to
two conflicting state and doctrinal interpretations: some saw it as an implicit authorisation
for military intervention in Iraq, while for others the text was a mere warning,
meaning that military intervention would have required another express vote in the
Security Council.
Its text runs through the previous resolutions that the Security Council had approved
on Iraq since 1990. Resolution 1441 (2002) also recognises ‘the threat Iraq’s non-compliance
with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
long-range missiles poses to international peace and security’. In other words, we are
talking about Chapter VII of the Charter here, and the Security Council is fulfilling its
function of determining what poses (or where there is) a threat to peace and security.
The situation evolved dramatically, as in the absence of an ad hoc Security Council
authorisation, the United States, the United Kingdom and other allied states launched
military intervention against Iraq with the aim of bringing an end to Saddam Hussein’s
regime. The government in Washington considered that a new Security Council
resolution was not required to legitimise this intervention, as others had already been
approved in the past that permitted it –such as Resolutions 678 (1990), 687 (1991) and
1441 (2002)-, and these very resolutions warned that the Security Council would take
the necessary measures if Iraq did not comply with the obligations laid down therein.
Now, if we analyse these resolutions, we find that none of them can serve as a legal
basis to legitimise the intervention of the United States and its allies in Iraq. Firstly,
Resolution 678 (1990) condemned the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and not an alleged
nuclear programme or one for weapons of mass destruction –what is more, it was not
approved unanimously-. Moreover, its text appears diffuse when it states that Iraq must
comply with ‘all subsequent relevant resolutions [...] to restore international peace and
security in the area’, as it seems to be legitimising the use of force in all resolutions
that may subsequently be issued. Does this mean that the subsequent Resolution 1441
may justify the use of force because this is indicated in 678? At any rate, for those who
do believe this to form a legal basis, it is worth recalling that in 1991 this international
military intervention was supposed to be limited to the liberation of Kuwait and the
restoration of peace and security, and not specifically to the disarmament of Iraq.
Secondly, in regard to Resolution 687 (1991), the Security Council recalls in the text
that it has exclusive competence for decisions relating to the use of force and that it
does not delegate its powers to any state. Consequently, the subsequent military intervention
of the US and its allies in 2003 could not be based on this resolution.
46 Resolution 1441 (2002) of the Security Council, of 8 November 2002.
http://revista.ieee.es/index.php/ieee
261