Use of Force, and International Humanitarian Law

Stimulated by allegations made in an Italian television documentary,[1] a worldwide controversy has developed concerning the use of white phosphorus (WP) munitions by U.S. military forces during the assault on Fallujah, Iraq in November 2004. An important part of the controversy involves accusations that the use of WP munitions in Fallujah violated international law. This Insight examines the international legal aspects of the use of WP munitions by U.S. military forces in Iraq.

 

Background to the Controversy

 

Introduction

 

Victims of hurricane Katrina are internally displaced persons, not refugees

The bombings of three trains in the London Underground (subway) system and of one London bus on July 7, 2005, have been denounced as terrorist attacks by world leaders and reported as terrorism by the media. Although there is still no all-encompassing definition of terrorism that is universally recognized in international law, it is apparent that these bombings would qualify legally as terrorism and that there are international ramifications.

 

British news headlines have recently been dominated by the General Election, which took place on 5 May 2005. Predictably, the Iraq war was one of the "hot topics" of the election, and received much air time from politicians of all persuasions. One comment, which sparked a flurry of press attention, may have been confusing both to lay observers in Britain and to watchers abroad. On 30 April 2005, Gordon Brown, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated that, in future, Members of Parliament should be allowed to decide whether Britain goes to war.[1]

 

I. Criminal Law Issues