what's more important for the UK-legality or legitimacy, in going to war?

Question

in the international arena is it legitimacy or legality that matters most in determining the use of force?neither kosovo or iraq were 100% legal but were we right to go in anyway?

Answer 1

This question is rarely voiced by most people in England, The terms are too sliding, too arbitrary.

Both terms are at present 'contested zones', they are the ideological battleground over which imaginary wars are fought on the plush carpets of Westminster.

These terms mean whatever they need to mean to retain power.

But since you asked the question, i will give you MY viewpoint as welded clumsily onto these terms:

Legitimacy is the leading opinion.

Legality is when it gets written down, and used against people.

Until another power ascends the UK throne (post. Brown), the legality and ligitimacy of the Iraq war will rest on the foundations of mass-information as employed by the perpetrators.

With a new government, we will progressively evolve an alternative understanding of these terms, and the decision to go to war with Iraq will then be called something in between the two, something like foetal legitimacy, or plastic legitimate value.

But by that time,.it only is used to justify another bad policy, will not undo the original, and is merely a skirmish for the footholds History.

Answer 2

I think it is legitimacy.

[ Go to history of the British Empire to dig out the truth about it.Note India well and try your answers at :
Why the British went to India (through the East India Company)? what they averted there?How they were misunderstood by the inhabitants there at that time and why ? What was the level of education there -in the land of thousands of Gods and other Dieties?What happened as consequences of misunderstandings?How they were made to leave India?What they left behind as culture and base for the nation to prosper to day ?What would have happened if they were not there?. And how today the Indians look on the British? etc etc.
Be dispassionate at your study and if you have replied all the above questions compile all in to a book and throw it to those concerned!Do not forget the mentalities at both sides-British and Indians. I would suggest you convene an international forum and debate the issues you raise in public ( be it under some TV coverage) and let the viewers see how you reach your decisions.That could be great for the world to know pure knowledge which nothing other than TRUTH. Again forget not not to involve all the great of India- the Gandhi. philosophers Nehru etc all who fought for the independence- 60 th anniversary-they are celebrating today - Wednesday15.-08.07.All in a cordial friendly atmosphere.Participants may be advised to bring their own tissues to wipe their perspirations now and and then as truth unfolds itself-may last very long!]
All known (or part only) you will judge how at times intervention has to be legitimate where human lives are at stake.

Answer 3

I do not know if there is actually such a thing as an illegal war.
Therefore I would concern myself with legitimacy. I am not sure that it was legitimate to invade Iraq but as sure as hell it was to invade Afghanistan. The mission has failed and frankly the best thing to do is to get to hell out of it before it really goes pear shaped. No one has ever subdued Afghanistan. It is a lawless country and if you are going to do anything there it must be an in, do it, and out. The British leaned this during the colonial period and I'm surprised that the the blairina government dd not take notice of that

Answer 4

It is a question with no definitive answer. Congress authorized it. We are a signer of the UN Charter, however, making it law. And, according to United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan (now former), it was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. He said "From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal." So, Constitutionally speaking, it was legal, but it was a violation of international law, making it illegal. As an aside, Public Law 107 - 243 is NOT a declaration of war, it is simply an authorization to use troops. So, from a legal standpoint, the "Iraq War" is a military exercise, not a war. Declaring war without a formal declaration of war from Congress IS illegal/unConstitutional.

Answer 5

Let the tons and tons of depleted uranium speak for itself, with their eternal radiation, causing cancer all over.

Let Kelly arise from the dead and point his finger upon Blair, as to why young children were sent to Iraq.

Let the thousands of killed people in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq be asked if they had wanted peace or death, before USA and UK have stepped in to create hellground.

Legitimacy is self-proclaimed madness. Legality is something way under "Transformational Diplomacy" and its dark angels and poltroons.

But, if you find interest in such catastrophy, for the sake of some extra petroleum barrels or more territory to dig in rockets facing Moscow, then you could always turn for the "end justifies the means."

Answer 6

It's the age old question of 'Does the end justify the means?'
I'm not sure, but I would guess those in power would side with whichever viewpoint is most beneficial at the time.
If we had found WMD the legal side would've been waved about, as they weren't the legitimacy view was suddenly prevalent.

Answer 7

necessity must also be a criterion.

Answer 8

solidarity