North America

            Under the headline quoted above, the New York Times on June 23 reported that the United States bowed to opposition within the U.N. Security Council and dropped its effort to obtain a Security Council resolution that would immunize its troops from prosecution in the International Criminal Court (ICC). [1]   It is important to understand just what this does and does not mean, particularly in the context of the continued presence of substantial numbers of U.S. military personnel in Iraq after the sovereign Interim Government of Iraq took office on June 28.

 

            According to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1511, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the recognized occupying power in Iraq, [1] will dissolve on June 30, and an interim Iraqi government will begin to exercise Iraqi sovereignty. [2]   The United States, however, has repeatedly stated that its troops will remain in Iraq after the handover, pursuant to an expected request by the Iraqi government.  Given the questions surrounding the legitimacy of any Iraqi government, what would be the legal status of such a request?

 

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