In order to fully understand the outcome of these three scenarios in
relation to the international law and the use of force, we must first
discuss the law as defined by the UN Charter. The UN Charter governs the
international law and the use of force and has outlined very clear criteria
for "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state" (article 2 4). The Charter strives
to provide a state the ability to maintain its sovereignty and individual
state integrity while outlining two instances that the use of force may be
used. The first is individual or self defense' (art. 51), when a member
state is the victim of aggression. As Guicherd points out, there are
limitations to this justification. For example, Resolution 2625 states that
assistance to either party engaged in a civil war is prohibited (20).
The second justification for use of force is when the Security
Council recognizes the "existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the
peace, or act of aggression" (art. 39) and determines the use of coercive
action is appropriate. It is important to note that there are coercive
measures that can be taken that do not include the use of force, such as
imposing sanction on a state found in violation.
The three uses of force discussed here all differ from each other in
conflict origin and political circumstances. In order to compare the
military actions in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq a discussion of the
circumstances under which the use of force took place is appropriate. All
situations are unique and produce a gray area when determining the legality
of the actions imposed by the United States, NATO and its allies. The
justification and legality of the use of force in Kosovo, Afghanistan and
Iraq have been hotly debated with opinions raging from in the case of
Kosovo, "simple skepticism to vehement condemnation of the legality of ...