(quote) Steven-706921 said: Well, given that it was a war of aggression since we attacked first, how about the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 and the United Nations Charter that confirms the original interdict....
Ah but you are incorrect here.
From a legal perspective, the Iraq war of 2003 is an extension of the Gulf War of 1991. As we all know, it was Iraq
that launched that war. The aggression, therefore, is on the part of Iraq, not the United States.
That war was suspended in a ceasefire agreement, not ended in a definitive peace. Thousands upon thousands of years of precedent hold that once one side has violated a ceasefire, the other side is free to immediately resume hostilities if they so choose. There is absolutely no
requirement that the UN or any other outside entity make some kind of formal finding declaration of a violation.
Even if that was the case, the UN in Resolution 1441 did in fact agree that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire. While the resolution did not specifically discuss an immediate resumption of hostilities, such a discussion was not necessary. It is of far more legal significance that it did not prohibit further military action.
But again, all of that is moot. The moment Iraqi air defense engaged coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones way back in the Clinton administration, the U.S. and coalition partners were legally free to resume hostilities.