War in Iraq is aggression

Russian Information Agency (Novosti), 26 March 2003

• In the 20th century, following the two world wars, the international community banned wars as a means to pursue foreign policy and settle international disputes and conflicts.
• [T]he UN General Assembly defines an aggressor as a state that was the first to use force against another state regardless of a declaration of war. Particularly so, if a country attacks a sovereign country without UN authorisation.
• By acting in circumvention of the United Nations Washington and London violate international law, their own international commitments, including the Millennium Declaration adopted by the United Nations at the General Assembly session in 2000.
• According to the scholar, the United States and Great Britain are acting as totalitarian rather than democratic states, for democracy primarily requires compliance with both national and international law.

MOSCOW, March 26, 2003. From RIA Novosti correspondent Valery Asriyan—The war on Iraq, unleashed by the United States and Great Britain, is undoubtedly an act of aggression in terms of international law, Professor Oleg Khlestov, Deputy President of the Russian Association on International Law, Chairman of the Department of International and Constitutional Law of the Moscow State Linguistic University said in an interview with RIA Novosti. In the 20th century, following the two world wars, the international community banned wars as a means to pursue foreign policy and settle international disputes and conflicts. Prior to that, war was considered a legal means to settle arguments, which accounts for so many wars in the world’s history, Khlestov said.

Khlestov stressed that in line with international law and the UN Charter, the use of force can only be authorised by a UNSC resolution or, while using the right of self-defence which is stipulated by Article 51 of the UN Charter, if a state is subject to an armed attack by another state or to a terrorist attack. The reference to terrorism was added to the previous version by a UNSC resolution in the wake of the New York terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

An intense debate is going on now whether the Anglo-American campaign against Iraq may be qualified as aggression.

The word aggression, Khlestov reminds, was defined 70 years ago by the 1933 London Convention, and later confirmed and specified within the framework of the 1974 UN General Assembly.

By the way, the definition was initiated by the Soviet Union whereas the United States was against it, the scholar added.

According to Khlestov, the UN General Assembly defines an aggressor as a state that was the first to use force against another state regardless of a declaration of war. Particularly so, if a country attacks a sovereign country without UN authorisation.

However, to claim that aggression is a fact is the prerogative of the United Nations Security Council which then has the role of an international court arbiter of last resort and passes a final verdict on the act of aggression, Khlestov noted. That is why the Russian leadership is absolutely right referring to the UNSC prerogative in the present-day complicated situation, the scholar stressed.

Now it is clear that the military action of the United States and Great Britain against Iraq is qualified as aggression. Thus, the United States and Britain violate the basic principle of international law which bans the use of force except in self-defence, Khlestov added.

As for Iraq, in the given circumstances, the country, which is subject to military attack, has the right to defend itself, as stipulated by Article 51 of the UN Charter, Khlestov believes.

By acting in circumvention of the United Nations Washington and London violate international law, their own international commitments, including the Millennium Declaration adopted by the United Nations at the General Assembly session in 2000. The Millenium Declaration proclaims the rule of international law world-wide. Both the United States and Great Britain voted for the declaration only to deal a severe blow to international law in Iraq three years later. In fact, this is an attempt to return to the past, to cross out humankind’s progress on an end to war, Khlestov said.

According to the scholar, the United States and Great Britain are acting as totalitarian rather than democratic states, for democracy primarily requires compliance with both national and international law.

The attempts of aggressors (which, undoubtedly, Washington and London are) to interpret UNSC Resolution 1441, seeking to determine unilaterally whether or not Iraq follows it, reveal the ambition to tackle issues of international stability, war and peace out of self-interest, the Russian scholar believes. The goal the aggressors proclaim openly—to change the Iraqi regime—is another infringement on international law, which outlaws an imposed regime change in sovereign states, Khlestov added.

Fortunately, the UN Security Council is to reconsider the situation in Iraq at an open session. Thus, pressure will be brought to bear on the US and Great Britain to put an end to the illegal military action and stop aggression in Iraq, the lawyer believes.

Moscow, March 26, 2003.