While our Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are making oversimplified assertions about Iraq and the US occupation (one side arguing the war was completely wrong, the other making similarly simple argument that the war was right and our occupation should continue), international law scholars are examining the real complexity of the issues. Their conclusions are sophisticated and derive from knowledge of international law concepts. While they acknowledge that under the formal international law parameters the invasion of Iraq was unlawful, they also are beginning to admit that it had some collateral positive effects (as well as negative, of course) ultimately. They have tried to trace and acknowledge some transformative trends in Iraq as a result of the US occupation. Their views may collide with mine or yours, but I encourage everyone to examine them more closely and understand how both political camps, Democrats and Republicans, are flawed in their assertions... It is because their views stem largely from the standpoint of 'national security', not international law. And 'national security' in their eyes unfortunately is composed of many dogmas and ideologically flawed assumptions which are diametrically in opposition to the philosophy behind international law... They also simplify things to get votes of many uninformed people... Sadly, even those who are pretty informed fall into the trap of oversimplification...
Click here for more information regarding a Symposium at Loyola Law School on this subject.
Click here for an article by Peter Danchin on this subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment