The Shifting Foundations of International Law: A Decade of Forceful Measures against Iraq Michael Byers Full text available: PDF format * Abstract Many of the authors who have written on the legal issues arising out of the United States' armed actions against Iraq in the decade following Operation Desert Storm have disagreed on the interpretation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and the United Nations Charter, on the possible emergence of a right to unilateral humanitarian intervention, and on possible extensions to the right of self-defence. But the same authors have shied away from considering the root causes of their disagreements: i.e., their sometimes starkly divergent views on foundational aspects of international law. What are the general rules concerning the interpretation of Security Council resolutions? What are the general rules concerning the interpretation of treaties? How are rules of customary international law, in general, made and changed? How does customary international law interact with treaties? These are important questions, not only because our approach to them is likely to determine our analyses of substantive rules, but also because the considerable influence of the United States in this post-Cold War epoch might in fact be changing the answers, with profound consequences for all of international law. * The free viewer (Acrobat Reader) for PDF file is available at the Adobe Systems.
	© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute. This file was last modified: Friday, June 04, 2004 04:51AM