Book contents
- International Law in Public Debate
- International Law in Public Debate
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- 1 International Law in Public Debate
- 2 A ‘Popular’ International Law
- 3 Public Debate in 2003: The Iraq War
- 4 Public Debate in 1965–66: The Vietnam War
- 5 Public Debate in 1916: The First World War
- 6 Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
3 - Public Debate in 2003: The Iraq War
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 November 2021
- International Law in Public Debate
- International Law in Public Debate
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- 1 International Law in Public Debate
- 2 A ‘Popular’ International Law
- 3 Public Debate in 2003: The Iraq War
- 4 Public Debate in 1965–66: The Vietnam War
- 5 Public Debate in 1916: The First World War
- 6 Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
In chapter 3, I argue that international law appeared in the 2003 debates primarily as an autonomous reason for or against war. Speakers invoked the legality or illegality of the invasion of Iraq as reason enough, on its own, to justify or condemn Australia’s actions. Speakers constructed international law as a measure of the justifiability of government action separate from any other measure such as morality or participation in an alliance, calling on a power that they believed international legal status would create. The 2003 debates included some examples of international law as a collective justification, but these were generally subordinate to the autonomous form of international legal language.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- International Law in Public Debate , pp. 41 - 88Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021