Armed conflict between

United States and Iraq (2003)

( Conflictul armat dintre Statele Unite ale Americii si Irak)

LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT

CONTENT

1. History of the conflict

2. Subjects involved
 3. Type of conflict
4. Applicable Treaties
5. Status of fighters
6. Application / observance of LOAC principles
7. LOAC violations and crimes committed
8. The reaction of the international community
9. CONCLUSION
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.History of the conflict

On March 19, 2003, the United States, along with coalition forces primarily from the
United Kingdom, initiates war on Iraq. Just after explosions began to rock Baghdad, Iraq’s
capital, U.S. President George W. Bush announced in a televised address, “At this hour,
American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to
free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” President Bush and his advisors
built much of their case for war on the idea that Iraq, under dictator Saddam Hussein,
possessed or was in the process of building weapons of mass destruction.

Hostilities began about 90 minutes after the U.S.-imposed deadline for Saddam
Hussein to leave Iraq or face war passed. The first targets, which Bush said were “of military
importance,” were hit with Tomahawk cruise missiles from U.S. fighter-bombers and
warships stationed in the Persian Gulf. In response to the attacks, Republic of Iraq radio in
Baghdad announced, “the evil ones, the enemies of God, the homeland and humanity, have
committed the stupidity of aggression against our homeland and people.”

Though Saddam Hussein had declared in early March 2003 that, “it is without doubt
that the faithful will be victorious against aggression,” he went into hiding soon after the
American invasion, speaking to his people only through an occasional audiotape. Coalition
forces were able to topple his regime and capture Iraq’s major cities in just three weeks,
sustaining few casualties. President Bush declared the end of major combat operations on
May 1, 2003. Despite the defeat of conventional military forces in Iraq, an insurgency has
continued an intense guerrilla war in the nation in the years since military victory was
announced, resulting in thousands of coalition military, insurgent and civilian deaths.

2. Subject involved
The states wich was involved in the armed conflict was United States and Iraq, two
states with different regimes, on the one hand US with a democratic regime and on the other
side Iraq with a totalitarian regime. Alongside of US was Great Britain which help the first
one with money and armed forces.

The country leaders was George Bush and Ṣaddām Ḥussein. The reasons of the
beginning of the conflict was to help the the Iraqi population to escape from the totalitarian
regime and to stop them to arm himself with weapons of mass destruction, and another
important reason was to catch the terrorist group Al-Qaeda headed by Osama bin Laden
which atacked US on 11 september 2001, the group was supported by the Iraq.

The air strikes by the US and UK-led coalition that started on 20 March 2003 clearly
constituted an international armed conflict between the coalition States and Iraq. An
international armed conflict is generally defined as “any difference arising between two States
and leading to the intervention of members of the armed forces” or, as the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has put it, as a situation where “there is a
resort to armed force between States.”

As for the core of existing IHL, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 were applicable
to this conflict, but not Additional Protocol I, to which neither the US nor Iraq are State
Parties. While the Geneva Conventions focus almost entirely on the protection of persons in
the hands of the enemy, Additional Protocol I in particular contains detailed rules on the
conduct of hostilities.
 3.Type of conflict
US and Iraq took a conflict of international armed type. An international armed
conflict is an armed conflict between two or more states. Both states had the army implicated
in this conflict . US and UK they managed to remove the Sadan Hussein from power, but the
conflict it doesn't end here because a conflict begins against insurgents and the Al Qaeda
terrorist group and now begin a non-international armed conflict (NIAC)  (counterterorism
conflict).

Prior to the adoption of the Geneva Conventions, international law distinguished

between two types of armed conflict :

International Armed Conflict

International armed conflict as defined in the Geneva Conventionsis essentially

similar to traditional legal notions of the concept of ‘war’ – an armed conflict between two or
more states. Article 2, common to the Four Conventions, provides that:

… the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed
conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the
state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of
partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said
occupation meets with no armed resistance.

With the adoption of the Additional Protocols in 1977, a new category of international
armed conflict was added. Under Additional Protocol I, an international armed conflict will
exist in situations:

… in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and
against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the
Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law
concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations.

Non-International Armed Conflicts

The Geneva Conventions also cover non-international armed conflicts, which are
defined in Common Article 3 as ‘armed conflict not of an international character occurring in
the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties’. When the laws of war were revisited in
the 1970s, it was determined that there should be more laws regulating non-international
armed conflicts. Additional Protocol II therefore, applies to:

… all armed conflicts not covered by Article 1 … of Protocol I and which take place in the
territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or
other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over
a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military
operations and to implement this Protocol.

However, Additional Protocol II is limited by a number of qualifiers. Before the

Protocol can be triggered, dissident forces have to exercise control over part of their host
State’s territory. The fighting must be sustained or protracted, and rise above mere ‘internal
tensions’, ‘riots’, and other ‘isolated and sporadic acts of violence.’ Whether or not the
Protocol applies is also dependent on the dissident forces being able to ‘implement’ the
Protocol. So, where an armed group does not retain some measure of territorial control, or is
unable to implement the Protocol, the Protocol does not apply. In addition, the issue of
multiple non-State parties to the conflict is not addressed. Unlike Common Article 3, which
foresees the possibility of multiple dissident groups engaging in a non-international armed
conflict, Protocol II applies only in situations of armed conflict between a dissident armed
group and the armed forces of a High Contracting Party and not as between different armed
groups. Also, any situation where there is no recognised government – only insurgent or
opposition groups fighting one another for control.

International armed conflicts are by far the most highly regulated, with a raft of
treaties and comprehensive customary international law regulating permissible State conduct.
By comparison, non-international armed conflicts have few laws regulating their conduct.

4. Applicable Treaties
The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United
States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces
from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in
Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by
President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw
from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq
by December 31, 2011. The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24
hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to
combat U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal
law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain
their immunity. If U.S. forces committed still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while
off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by
a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty

The agreement expired at midnight on December 31, 2011, even though the United States
completed its final withdrawal of troops from Iraq on December 16, 2011. The symbolic
ceremony in Baghdad officially "cased" (retired) the flag of U.S. forces in Iraq, according to
army tradition.

The Iraqi government also approved a Strategic Framework Agreement with the United
States  aimed at ensuring international cooperation including minority ethnicity, gender, and
belief interests and other constitutional rights; threat deterrence; exchange students;
education;  and cooperation in the areas of energy development, environmental hygiene,
health care, information technology, communications, and law enforcement.

Several groups of Iraqis protested the passing of the SOFA accord  as prolonging and
legitimizing the occupation, and Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini al-Sistani expressed concerns
with the ratified version. Some other Iraqis expressed skepticism that the U.S. would
completely end its presence by 2011. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had predicted
that after 2011 he would have expected to see "perhaps several tens of thousands of American
troops" as part of a residual force in Iraq. 

5. Status of fighters
In this conflict was a lot of people who fought by both side especially American troops
were numerous, but the US wasn’t alone several allies participated with troops among which
UK, Poland, Australia and Iraqi troops.

It was a big discrepancy between the parties. The invasion troops was in total 2 milion
people and on the Iraq and then terrorist groups was in total 560.00 people.

But this discrepancy wasn’t just in numbers of troops, it was and in the armament,
technology, economic support and many others areas.

The US were definitely over almost in everything, but this wasn’t a normal war after
the fall of Saddam Hussein the war was in against the Americans, because the insurgents
fought very different and in a in a way never seen before. Then was a very a very strong
psychological impact because US and allies troops started to die in large numbers.

The insurgents troops was very good trained and very fanatics and believers in the
what they want to do and started to became kamikaze and to die willingly. They no respect
any rules and any treaties, they make what they want without something legal. They violated a
lot of conventions and human right, every prisoner were killed in front of a camera and after
that the video was posted on internet. But through dead there were also civilians through no
fault of their own so they violated all ruls what they want.
 6.Application / observance of LOAC principles
The law of war rests on five fundamental principles that are inherent to all targeting
decisions: military necessity, unnecessary suffering, proportionality, distinction
(discrimination), and honor (chivalry).

 Military Necessity – Every injury done to the enemy, even though permitted by the
rules, is excusable only so far as it is absolutely necessary; everything beyond that is
criminal.The principal of military necessity prohibits things such as wounding or permanently
injuring an opponent except during the fight, torture to exact confessions and other activities
simply used to inflict additional damage on the enemy that does not further the military objective.
The Liber Code defines the prohibited activity as, “in general, … any act of hostility that make the
return to peace unnecessarily difficult.

Unnecessary Suffering –It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and materials

and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering

Proportionality – Loss of life and damage to property incidental to attacks must not

be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained.
The key here is the word incidental, meaning outside of the military target. This means that
when considering a target the damage to civilians and their property cannot be excessive in
relation to the military advantage gained. Proportionality is not a requirement if the target is
purely military. This principle brings with it an obligation to consider all options when
making targeting decisions: verify the target, timing (is there a time when fewer civilians will
be around), weapons used, warnings and evacuations for civilian populations. 

 In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian
objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population
and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall
direct their operations only against military objectives.The only legitimate object of attack in
an armed conflict is military personnel or property. This does not mean that civilians cannot
be legally harmed or killed under the law only that civilians and civilian property should not
be the object or the purpose of the attack.

7. LOAC violations and crimes commited

The “commitment of all forces promoting the maintenance of security and stability in
Iraq to act in accordance with international law, including international humanitarian law,” as
mentioned in the Security Council Resolution, was an indicator that the Security Council
envisaged and accepted its continued application. Also in his letter Colin Powell stressed the
commitment of the Multinational Forces “at all times to act consistently with their obligations
under the law of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions.”
 Given that the Multinational Forces were fighting with and in cooperation with Iraqi
armed and security forces, reporting to the Interim Government, against armed opposition
groups or armed actors, there were good reasons to requalify the conflict as an
internationalized internal armed conflict regulated by common Article 3 GC and customary
rules (applicable in non-international armed conflicts). The plain wording of common Article
2 to the four GCs, as confirmed by the ICTY case law, the ICRC commentary and legal
literature precludes at first sight the existence of an international armed conflict. Common to
these sources is the requirement of an armed conflict between at least two States. Given that
the Members of the Security Council – without objection from other States since – have
identified the Interim Government as representing Iraq, it can hardly be argued that an
international armed conflict continues between the coalition forces and armed forces of the
State of Iraq. It is also excluded to qualify the armed groups, against which the Multinational
Forces are fighting together with the Iraqi armed and security forces, as armed forces of a
government or an authority, which is not recognized, in the sense of Article 4 A para.

IHL only applies in situations of armed conflict. Treaty law has traditionally
distinguished between international armed conflicts, including situations of military
occupation, and non-international armed conflicts, the former being regulated in far more
detail than the latter as can be seen in the core IHL treaties, i.e. the 1949 Geneva Conventions
and its two 1977 Additional Protocols. The last years have however shown a growing
tendency to regulate international and non-international armed conflicts in the same way in
treaty law, and customary international law has developed in a way as to apply the same rules
to a large extent in both types of situations.

The air strikes by the US and UK-led coalition that started on 20 March 2003 clearly
constituted an international armed conflict between the coalition States and Iraq. An
international armed conflict is generally defined as “any difference arising between two States
and leading to the intervention of members of the armed forces” or, as the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has put it, as a situation where “there is a
resort to armed force between States.” As for the core of existing IHL, the four Geneva
Conventions of 1949 were applicable to this conflict, but not Additional Protocol I, to which
neither the US nor Iraq are State Parties. While the Geneva Conventions focus almost entirely
on the protection of persons in the hands of the enemy, Additional Protocol I in particular
contains detailed rules on the conduct of hostilities, including air-to-ground operations.
Consequently the air strikes, which were the predominant feature in the beginning of the
military operations, were essentially subject to the rules of customary international law.
However these rules of customary international law now correspond largely to those of
Additional Protocol I.

In Iraq in June 2006, two soldiers of the United States Army were abducted and later
murdered and mutilated by members of the Mujahedeen Shura Council, during a time
when military forces of the U.S. and a dozen other countries were conducting military
operations in Iraq to "bring order to parts of that country that remained dangerous.’’On 16
June 2006, a U.S. military checkpoint near Baghdad was attacked. One of the three U.S.
soldiers manning the checkpoint was killed, and the two others, Menchaca and Tucker, were
abducted. Those two were recovered three days later, according to an Iraqi spokesman "killed
in a very brutal way and tortured". The Mujahedeen Shura Council—an organization of six
groups, including Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn ("al-Qaeda in Iraq"), and
forerunner of Islamic State of Iraq and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)—claimed
afterwards to have "slaughtered" the two abducted soldiers in revenge for the raping of an
Iraqi girl and the killing of her family by soldiers of the same unit. However, the veracity of
this stated motive was disputed by some, as knowledge about U.S. involvement in the rape
and murder was not widely known at the time of the attack and the original declaration
announcing the kidnapping had made no mention of it.

The Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre refers to the U.S. shooting and bombing of
a wedding party in Mukaradeeb, a small village in Iraq near the border with Syria on 19 May
2004. 42 civilians were killed.

The U.S. military took the stance that the location was a legitimate target. Brigadier
General Mark Kimmit the coalition deputy chief of staff for U.S. operations in Iraq: "We
took ground fire and we returned fire. We estimate that around 40 were killed. But we
operated within our rules of engagemen U.S. fire included both bullets and bombs, leaving
behind craters.

8. The reaction of international community

Demonstrations against the American-led war in Iraq roiled cities around the world
today, with the riot police in several Arab nations turning water cannons, tear gas, batons and
finally bullets on unruly protesters who surged by the thousands into the streets after Friday
Prayers.But the reaction in some countries was more muted than expected.

In Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, and across Southeast Asia, rallies
against the war drew fewer people than expected. Islamic religious leaders in Indonesia said
100,000 followers would march in Jakarta, but no more than a few thousand, at most, did so.

Angry demonstrations, ranging in size from hundreds to thousands, were held in

several Pakistani cities today to protest the attacks on Iraq.

But a call by hard-line Islamic groups for a nationwide strike fizzled and stores
generally remained open as normal. The Islamic parties have called for a major demonstration
on Sunday in the city of Lahore.
 The worst violence was in Yemen, where about 4,000 people tried to march from the
ancient city center to the American Embassy on the outskirts of Sana. The embassy building
is set back from a highway behind barricades and concrete blocks.

The government said protesters opened fire on the riot police, setting off a gun battle
that killed two demonstrators, one of them an 11-year-old boy, and left three police officers
hospitalized in critical condition.

At Al Azhar mosque in Cairo, the country's leading cleric, Sheik Muhammad Tantawi,
had barely finished his sermon with a prayer for the victory of the Iraqi people, when shouts
of ''Save Iraq'' rang out from mass of worshipers.

The riot police beat back protesters trying to leave the mosque, as other demonstrators
climbed to a parapet on the building and threw down stones and bits of furniture.

Even in Bahrain, the tiny Gulf nation that provides the base for the Navy's Fifth Fleet,
300 anti-American demonstrators gathered in front of the fortresslike American Embassy and
hurled stones at police officers.

Bush administration officials have talked of a period of reform and modernization for
the people of the Middle East once the government of Saddam Hussein is dismantled.

They have suggested that, with the assistance of the United States, a new Iraq will
arise from the ruins of Mr. Hussein's despotic rule and stir democratic reform across the
region.

But that vision has generally failed to move the Arab public, although dissatisfaction
with the autocratic governments of the region is widespread. The United States' motives for
the war in Iraq are viewed with suspicion.

Antiwar marchers also filled the streets of many European cities, although generally in
smaller numbers than on the first day of American and British strikes on Iraq. Protest leaders
across Europe have called for giant demonstrations on Saturday

In Madrid today, several hundred people planted white crosses in a square opposite the
Parliament and called for the resignation of José María Aznar, the Spanish prime minister,
who has been one of President Bush's strongest supporters on the war. In London, where
some analysts said antiwar fervor appeared to lose steam once British forces were engaged in
battle, bicyclists protesting the war blocked the square in front of the House of Commons.

While the antiwar sentiment is shared between Europe and the Arab world, its roots
appear to be different.

European commentators and politicians tend to criticize the United States and Britain
for acting on their own, jeopardizing the credibility of established international institutions
and the rule of international law.
 CONCLUSION
The armed conflict between United States and Iraq was an conflict which made many
victims and in violation of laws, conventions and human rights. It was a hard war for both
side, but in final the invasion troops they managed to win.

A big discrepancy was between belligerents, a terrorist group which make a lot of
violations of law and right, this war was different and never seen before something like this.

All LOAC principles could help if they were properly observed, but any parts didn’t.
A treaty was sing between both side which was a great step forward for a to end the conflict.

The multitude of murders made a lot of countries to revolt against this war which
becomes to big with implications of many contries. All contries wich revolt made protests but
in the final in 2011 and now civil support operations are performed.

In conclusion from this conflict we need to learn that we must to respect the law of
armed conflict and to prevent it’s vioations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. „Intermational affairs” – Barry Buzan

2. „The War in Iraq: A Legal Analysis” - Raul A. “Pete” Pedrozo
3. https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaq.htm
4. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/22/world/nation-war-international-reaction-
crowds-protest-iraq-war-cities-around-world.html
5. https://www.defence.gov.au/FOI/Docs/Disclosures/267_1617_Documents.pdf
6. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/war-in-iraq-begins
7. https://www.britannica.com/event/Iraq-War
8. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/bush-war-iraq-
190318150236739.html