Violation of International Rule in Iran-Iraq War

The 1980–1988 Iran – Iraq War affected huge costs as each side sustained hundreds of casualties. Furthermore, there was an atmosphere of eco-destruction devastation surrounded by war. The weapons that continued the eight-year war continue both countries even today. One of the deepest chapters of the war was Iraq's use of chemical weapons by both sides. The Chemical Weapons (CW) created a variety of dangerous examples that continue to resonate. The use of the CW by Iraq and Iran allegedly demonstrated that Third World Weapons Massacre (WMD) broadcasters could potentially engage critical strategic military and tactical politics in conflicts using such equipment. Initially reluctant by the international community to condemn and punish Iraq for its chemical attacks. From Iraqi counter-spies, the use of the CW prompted most Saddam Hussein and key Iraqi military officials to continue Iraq's WMD programs and pursue aggressive security policies - a development that would have been part of the Gulf War and continuation of the 1990–91 during the course; it developed in its own right is of deep international concern. While the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) was being negotiated during the mid-1980s, the 1925Geneva Protocol stood as an international document governing the use of CW in war.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AGAINST CHEMICAL WEAPONS

The First World War included the most widespread use of the CW in the twentieth century. After the war, momentum-based in the international community created a legitimacy to address the troubling issue of biological weapons (BW), to the extent of the CW and the Toa. Sensitizing an opportunity to deal with the problem after the war, in 1922, major powers led by the United States called Europe to discuss the issue. By 1925, a protocol was implemented in Geneva that prohibited the use of chemical and 'bacteriological' weapons in war.

The protocol was open for signature in June 1925 and entered into force in February 1928. In the United States, ratification of the protocol by the Senate was strong for nearly 20 years, in April 1975 the United States ratified the protocol. Iran ratified the protocol in July 1929. , While Iraq by September 1931.Ratified the Geneva Protocol in 1925, standing as the controlling authority over the CW before the Iran-Iraq War. The 1975 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) was truly influential in restricting the use, research, activities, production, and stockpiling of biological weapons pre-widely and its language did not address the principle of chemicals outside of toxins, which are inorganic compounds. Discussions did not reach a critical point in the Iran – Iraq war when a warrant regarding the use of Kemi-Colors on the issue of Iraq's use of CW was received internationally enough to be of concern.In March 1984, less than a month after the first UUS. Condemning the CW's use of Iraq, President Ronald Reagan called on Vice President George Bushto to repeal the treaty in the United Nations Convention (CW) to form a formal treaty against the treaty to shape a treaty CW10. However, the CWC was only open (January 1993) after the end of the Iran-Iraq War. The CWC entered April 1997, almost 10 years after the Iran-Iraq War ended.

Developments from 1982 to 1984

From 1982 to 1984, the situation on the battlefield was useless, if not desperate. During this period, the conflict came to a war situation. However, Iraq proved mastery in building defensive strongpoints, while flooding in low-lying areas affected mechanized units to upgrade areas, with both sides using too little of the armor to effectively use Abil-It. Shown. Instead of maneuvers, both sides dug tanks and used artillery pieces more of them. Within four weeks between February and March 1984, Iraqis reportedly killed Iranians while losing 9,000 of their troops. On the political front, Tehran had strengthened its position by the Islamic government, and Ayatol-Lah appeared inflexible under Khomeini's leadership. With a demonstration again to end the war soon. Iranianisation issued its demands for a cease-fire: complete Iraqi withdrawal from all Iranian territories, full war indemnity, and expelled 100,000 previ-ely Iraq withdrawal Shiites. Surprisingly, Baghdad has been viewed as unacceptable. This time, Iraq's chemical capabilities did not give Iraq a strategic and tactical advantage, which its miley-tarry planners might have initially thought. Its stock of agents was limited, agents varied, delivery systems were inefficient, and Milli-Tarry had misconceptions of operation.

In 1983 employment, the Iraqis used moose-traded gas against an Iranian force that occupied a hilltop position. Unrecognized with gas characteristics — It failed At – Keil. Mustard gas is heavier than air and seeks the lowest elevation. The Iraqis resented that when they attempted to counter-attack the mountain, they met and were shocked at their weapons. When Iraq used chemical agents, adverse air, and weather conditions, it expressed its inability to deliver the agent to the target. , Hindering the effectiveness of at-tax. By November 1983, Iraq was a massive mustard agent against Iranian troops in northeast Iraq, causing hundreds of chemical casualties.

As 1984 progressed, Iraqis became more adept at acknowledging their chemical capabilities: one of the most dramatic examples was Khyber I in February 1984, in which this Iranian cut the Basra-Baghdad road through the Havijah swamp Tried. In a notable example of a battle-field contradiction, the Iraqis isolated the internal elements of the attacking force, nearly cutting it off remodel land. When the Iraqis retaliated, they confronted the Iranians, who had no ammunition, which had not eaten for several days.

Developments from 1984 to 1986

The battle between Iran and Iraq continued from 1984 to 1986 through almost the same fashion as in the previous two years: one side would launch a large offensive; the latter would tilt downward, while the other side would gather its army and will initiate retaliation. The CW continued to play an integral part in the Iraqi strategy between 1984 and 1986, and during this time Iraq expanded and refined its methods for the use of the CW. According to Intelli-Gaines reports, the preferred method of delivery for CW attacks included 250- or 500-kilogram bombs. An Iraqi MiG-23 pilot stated that during the suttakat, the bombs were released from a haphazard pattern to a haphazard pattern between three and four thousand meters. Because of the war, Pro Iridade, Iraqi pilots began flying on low-altitude inverters to ensure greater accuracy concerning the chemical. CAL agent drives bombing; they were hesitant to do this in the early stages of the war. When using helicopter to deliver chemical agents, Iraq would employ the use of two or three helicopters in attacking bunches. These helicopters dashed bombs configured into 220-liter connectors, which kept in contact with the ground. These factors led to the expanded use of Iraq. Iraq used the CW to indicate readiness to defend its territory in every region, as well as to carry out significant attacks on Iran.

Developments from 1987 to 1988

In the period from 1986 use of CW was residual, Iraq intensified the pace and scope of its chemical attacks. The lawsuit against Iraq of violations of the Geneva Protocol did not revolve around differences of interpretation or compliance. By this time, it was well established that Iraq had indeed violated the protocol and violated evidence confirming that it was inconsistent, if not widely known. The problem for internationalism now focuses on making decisions about punishing Iraq. During the last two years of conflict, Iran avoided its use, to ease the concerns neither of some countries, and neither used Iraq nor, according to some reports. But this time, Iranian forces were better protected and helpless to operate in a chemical environment, and then reports that the Iranian military also countered chemical attacks captured from Iraqi Chemical stores or indigenously produced agent stockpiles

On 18 July 1988, Iran accepted the terms of Resolution 598 and accepted the UN-sponsored ceasefire. Iraqi officials indicated accepting the terms of Iran's proposal, it would continue uninterrupted as Iran would not agree to en-guise indirect negotiations regarding a ceasefire agreement with Iraq. On 14 July, the then Vice President Bush and Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati addressed the Security Council. Velayati raids in the US against the American uprising in the Gulf, shooting Iranian civilian Airbus in the U.S. Vincennes, and the Security Council's refusal to deal impartially with 'acts of aggression already committed', Bush responded that the key issue before the Council was Iran's refusal to comply with the terms of Resolution 598. A special appeal in the use of the CW prohibits forums.

On August 8, 1988, Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar announced that the ceasefire agreement would go into effect on August 20, yet the CW had the Security Council to deal with the issue. On 26 August, it passed another 620 resolution, expressing intense concern over the continued use of the CW by Iraq and allegedly by Iran. The resolution stipulated that 'determined in its efforts to end all chemical weapons use,' 'undoubtedly' condemned the use of the CWW between Iran and Iraq, and further accelerated investigations by al-legends Privacy for-Tarry-General encouraged. Any UN Member State concerning the possible use of chemical or biological weapons. There is also the language that the council will, when appropriate, consider 'appropriate and effective' measures of future use of the CW by any nation.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Role of the UN Security Council in Iran-Iraq war

A major reason for Iran's long-running war with Iraq was the unilateralism taken by the UN Security Council and most countries of that war. This unconventional and supportive approach continued in various ways and was quite evident in the politically motivated positions taken by those countries in international bodies such as the United Nations and the Security Council. In its decisions and adopted resolutions, the Security Council has never dealt with war in a balanced manner and has never held them on internationally recognized borders after Iraqi forces occupied thousands of square kilometers of land in Iran. The council never used Iraq as the beginning of war and invaders.

On September 28, 1980, six days after the start of Iraq's war against Iran, the Security Council adopted its first relevant resolution (479). It described and requested the invasion of Iran by Iraq as a 'situation' between only two neighboring countries. Both sides to avoid the use of force. Thus, the Security Council remained largely indifferent to Iran's aggressive aggression. Furthermore, the Security Council did not call for a cease-fire and did not request Iraq to withdraw its forces from Iran's land to the international front. On the other hand, the invasion by Iraq was not recognized as a breach of peace and an act of invasion and was not condemned.

The Council could at least consider Iran's invasion of Iraq as a threat to peace or breach of the peace or as an act of aggression on the strength of Article 39-50 of the Charter of the United Nations Chapter VII. The double standards enforced by the Security Council in the face of an act of aggression indicated the Council's political orientation and partiality in dealing with important matters of world politics to guarantee the interests of the powerful members of the Council and any more than the thing was intended. The dependence of the Security Council on Article 24 in the First Persian Gulf War was clear evidence of the weakness of the Security Council and its solution. Article 24 only explained the duties and powers of the Council, although there was no dispute over the ability or inability of the Council to look into the ongoing armed conflict between the two countries. However, the Council decided to defend its competence only on the strength of Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations.

During the eight years of Iran's war with Iraq, only 10 resolutions were adopted by the Security Council. All except Resolution 598 described the war between Iran and Iraq as a 'situation', not about the Iran-Iraq war, which would be very important from the standpoint of international law and the UN Charter. Of course, Iran's diplomacy was not powerful enough during the entire war and Iranian officials, who were distrustful of international organizations, did not care much for legal and diplomatic solutions. Therefore, they moved to a policy of isolation and negligence for international bodies which was a very weak and wrong policy and greatly reduced the position of our country internationally.

Resolution 514 refers only to the need for the withdrawal of forces on internationally recognized borders when most Iraqi troops were driven out of occupied lands and Iranian forces had already reached international borders in the southern parts of the country. Iran's military power was the main factor that led to the meeting of the Security Council which culminated in the adoption of that resolution.

Resolution 598 was the most important resolution adopted by the Security Council in the entire Iraq war with Iran. It was approved on July 21, 1987, in which, for the first time, the Security Council exercised conflict and hostility and regretted the breakout and the continuation of the war between the two countries. It was in that resolution that for the first time, the war between Iraq and Iran was described as a breach of peace and, therefore, liable to the contents of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, specifically its Articles 39 and 40. However, the Security Council, as the most powerful international organ and responsible for the protection of international peace and security, did not declare which country breached the peace and did not introduce the violator. This was one of the main weaknesses of that resolution. The council also avoided indicating whether a breach of the peace had begun since the beginning of the war or around the time when Resolution 598 was adopted. Resolution 598 remained silent on how the war began and invaded, thus trying to infer that if Iraq was responsible for the start of the war, Iran was certainly responsible for its continuation. Meanwhile, Iran had resorted to its unqualified right to legitimate defense in line with Article 51 of the UN Charter and was the party to start and continue the Iraq war. According to Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations, in the case of an act of aggression, the Security Council should first make sure of aggression and then take steps according to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter. Naturally, not recognizing Iraq as an offensive by the Security Council and not condemning the country was a violation of Article 39 of the Charter.

Recognizing Responsibility of Iraq in War with Iran

On 9 December 1991, three weeks before the end of his term, Javier Perez de Cuellar, former Secretary-General of the United Nations, presented one of the most important reports prepared in the UN Security Council. His ability to produce that report was based on paragraph 6 of Resolution 598, adopted by the Security Council on July 20, 1987. Paragraph 5 of their report explicitly declared that the years-long war between Iran and Iraq had begun through violations of international law. He said that the violation of international law involved responsibility for the start of the conflict, which was the main subject of Article 6 of Resolution 598. De Cuellar stated that the principle of international law that prohibited the use and disrespect of force for the territorial integrity of a member. The state, which is subject to Article 6, has been violated. During that war, he noted, there were several cases of violations of various principles of international humanitarian law.

Para 6 of his report noted that Iraq's response to his letter dated August 14, 1991, did not contain any necessary information and, therefore, relied on previous interpretations provided by the Iraqi government. He said those explanations lacked convincing the international community. De Cuellar referred to the attack against Iran on 22 September 1980 as the most prominent incident, which showed a violation of international law specified in paragraph 5 of his report. He said that aggression cannot be justified against Iran based on international law or any principle or rule of ethics.

In part 7, the former UN Secretary-General acknowledged that even before the start of the war, Iraq had encroached on Iran's territory. He said that such an encroachment could not justify Iraq's aggression of Iraq, which led to the annexation of Iran's territory with Iraq.

The importance of the Security Council's recognition of Saddam Hussein as an aggressor in the war with Iran was generated by a message that was embedded in that recognition for the entire world. This message stems from the role of the United Nations in promoting the rule of law. 12 years after Iran's invasion of Iraq, the Secretary-General announced a fact that the Security Council should have announced immediately after Iran's invasion of Iraq. Based on Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council is the main body responsible for protecting international peace and security. If the Council had recognized and declared Iraq as an aggressor at the beginning of the war, it would not have lasted eight years, claiming the lives of nearly half a million people and causing billions of dollars in damage. On the other hand, Iraq did not dare to invade its small southern neighbor a few years later and rescue the entire region from a severe international crisis.