1/ Interesting twist on Charter 2(4) question that I haven't seen before. U.S. forces are in Iraq as part of coalition forces principally (but not exclusively) to *protect* Iraq from ISIL.
@Schmitt_ILaw @oonahathaway @AdHaque110 @rgoodlaw @MonicaHakimi @becingber @nlubell
@Schmitt_ILaw @oonahathaway @AdHaque110 @rgoodlaw @MonicaHakimi @becingber @nlubell
2/ We've now attacked Kataeb Hezbollah in Iraq to prevent KH from continuing to attack coalition forces (as it recently did). As far as the *public* record shows, however, Iraq didn't consent to this use of force on Iraq territory--indeed, reportedly ...
3/ we only told them of it 30 minutes before striking--and Iraq specifically objects. The U.S. justification: "The U.S. and its coalition partners fully respect Iraqi sovereignty ....The U.S., however, will not be deterred from exercising its right of self-defense."
4/ In these circumstances, however, is it plausible that the requirement of *necessity* for self-defense is satisfied? Couldn't the U.S. instead have given Iraq an ultimatum?, e.g.: "If you want us to continue to defend you, you must consent ...
defense.gov/Newsroom/Relea…
defense.gov/Newsroom/Relea…
5/ ... to this proposed act of (mutual) self-defense against KH." Idiosyncratic scenario.
Cautionary note: It's very possible we don't know the full story of communications between the U.S. and Iraq--there might even be de facto Iraqi consent (or not).
Cautionary note: It's very possible we don't know the full story of communications between the U.S. and Iraq--there might even be de facto Iraqi consent (or not).
