Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does Might Still Make Right? International Relations Theory and the Use of International Law Regarding the 2003 Iraq War

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2011

Part of the book series: Netherlands Yearbook of International Law ((NYIL,volume 42))

Abstract

Theories of International Relations take various positions regarding the role of international law in international politics. This article identifies four different perspectives on that role by making two distinctions: first, between approaches that assume that states act on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis and approaches that assume that states act upon shared ideas; second, between theories that assume that sovereign states are the only relevant players in international politics and theories that allow for the possibility that domestic and transnational players may affect international politics as well. Subsequently, the article investigates the choices made by France, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States prior to the 2003 war against Iraq. The four perspectives on the role of international law provide different interpretations of the weight these states attached to international law when considering the use of violence against Iraq.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, in particular, Byers 2000; Collins and White 2011; Evangelista 2008; Goldstein et al. 2000; and Lake 2010.

  2. 2.

    Various other approaches characterize IR theory, such as Critical Theory, Post-Modernism, Neo-Marxism, Neo-Gramscian, the English School, and Post-Structuralism. For an over view, see Dunne et al. 2007; the major debate nowadays is between rationalists and (social) constructivist, although some prefer a juxtaposition of rationalists and so-called reflectivists, who fundamentally differ on epistemology, allowing constructivists to be closer to either, while adopting a social rather than a material ontology (Christiansen et al. 1999).

  3. 3.

    Cf. Reinalda 2011.

  4. 4.

    Exceptions to this point of departure are those scholars who argue that the nature of the international political system itself is the product of, and depends on, the underlying structure of global economic relations. They include (neo-)Marxists and some Critical Theorists. Cf. Dunne et al. 2007.

  5. 5.

    A third, much smaller, brand of rationalists can be found among those scholars who explain a state’s behavior in the international political system by the objective of a state’s leadership to preserve their domestic power situation. This will be discussed in Sect. 8.2.2.

  6. 6.

    The major proponents of neorealism are Waltz 1979; Walt 1985; Mearsheimer 2001.

  7. 7.

    This position is eloquently presented in Mearsheimer 1994/1995.

  8. 8.

    The major proponents of neoliberalism include: Keohane 1984; Axelrod and Keohane 1985.

  9. 9.

    See, e.g., Murphy 1994.

  10. 10.

    The major proponents of social constructivism are Onuf 1989; Wendt 1999; and Zehfuss 2002.

  11. 11.

    Wendt 1992, p. 391.

  12. 12.

    Wendt 1999, pp. 343–366.

  13. 13.

    On soft power, see Nye 2004.

  14. 14.

    For domestic actors, see Allison 1971; Snyder et al. 1962; for transnationalism, see Keohane and Nye 1971.

  15. 15.

    For a rationalist account, see Bueno de Mesquita and Lalman 1992. For a constructivist approach, see Weldes 1999.

  16. 16.

    See Reinalda and Verbeek 1998.

  17. 17.

    See, http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2001/1001/e1002a.htm; cf. the testimony of senior NATO official Edgar Buckley, available at http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2006/issue2/english/art2.html, accessed on 19 October 2011.

  18. 18.

    ‘War with Iraq is Not in America’s National Interest’, New York Times 2002. For Kissinger’s position, see Kissinger 2002.

  19. 19.

    Wendt 1999.

  20. 20.

    Mazarr 2007, p. 8.

  21. 21.

    For a reconstruction of the policy process within the United States, see Mazarr 2007; Badie 2010. The neoconservatives’ instrumental view of international law regarding the use of torture and the role of the American Supreme Court are described in Cole 2008.

  22. 22.

    Davidson 2011, p. 134.

  23. 23.

    Woodward 2004, pp. 177–179.

  24. 24.

    Davidson 2011, p. 145. Cf. Danner 2006.

  25. 25.

    Backbenchers are MP’s of the governing party who do not occupy a formal position in the government. Usually, these governing positions number around 60–80 MP’s.

  26. 26.

    Cook 2003; Short 2004.

  27. 27.

    Stothard 2004, pp. 54–55.

  28. 28.

    Reynolds 1985–1986.

  29. 29.

    See Verbeek 2003, esp. pp. 42–60.

  30. 30.

    Davidson 2009; Romano 2006.

  31. 31.

    Nuti 2003.

  32. 32.

    See Evangelista 2011; Andreatta 2001.

  33. 33.

    Davidson 2011, p. 147.

  34. 34.

    Blair 2010, pp. 429–432.

  35. 35.

    Davidson 2011, pp. 147–157.

  36. 36.

    de Villepin 1995.

  37. 37.

    Cf. Rapport Commissie 2010, pp. 81–82.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., pp. 83–89 and 92.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., pp. 255–258.

  40. 40.

    In April 2003 DJZ would elaborate its position in a leaked paper; see, Memorandum Irak 2003.

  41. 41.

    Rapport Commissie van Onderzoek Besluitvorming Irak 2010, pp. 243–251.

  42. 42.

    SC Resolution 1973/2011.

References

  • Allison G (1971) Essence of decision. Explaining the Cuban missile crisis, Little Brown, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreatta F (2001) Italy as a crossroads. The foreign policy of a medium power at the end of bipolarity. Daedalus 130:45–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod R, Keohane R (1985) Achieving cooperation under anarchy: strategies and institutions. World Politics 38:226–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badie D (2010) Groupthink, Iraq, and the war on terror: explaining US policy shift toward Iraq. Foreign Policy Anal 6:277–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair T (2010) A journey. Arrow Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bueno de Mesquita B, Lalman D (1992) War and reason. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers M (ed) (2000) The role of law in international politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen T, Jørgensen K, Wiener A (1999) The social construction of Europe. J Eur Public Policy 6:528–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole D (2008) Justice at war. The men and ideas that shaped America’s war on terror. New York Review Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins R, White N (eds) (2011) International organizations and the idea of autonomy. Institutional independence in the international legal order, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook R (2003) The point of departure. Diaries from the front bench. Simon and Schuster, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Danner M (2006) The secret way to war. The Downing Street memo and the Iraq war’s buried history. New York Review Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson J (2009) Italy-US relations since the end of the cold war: prestige, peace, and the transatlantic balance. Bull Italian Politics 1:289–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson J (2011) America’s allies and war. Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills

    Google Scholar 

  • de Villepin X (1995) Quel ONU pour la France? In: Lewin A (ed) La France et l’ONU. Collection Panoramiques, Condé-sur-Noireau, pp 69–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne T, Kurki M, Smith S (eds) (2007) International relations theories. Discipline and diversity. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Evangelista M (2008) Law, ethics, and the war on terror. Polity Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Evangelista M (2011) Atomic ambivalance. Italy’s evolving attitude towards nuclear weapons. In: Giacomello G, Verbeek B (eds) Italy’s foreign policy in the 21st century: the new assertiveness of an aspiring middle power. Lexington, Lanham, pp 103–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein J, Kahler M, Keohane R, Slaughter A (eds) (2000) Legalization and world politics. Int Org 54:xi–xiii, 385–703

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane R (1984) After hegemony. Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane R, Nye J (eds) (1971) Transnational relations and world politics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kissinger H (2002) War on terror: Iraq is phase II. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/05/1031115911092.html. 6 Sept 2002. Accessed 19 Oct 2011

  • Lake D (2010) Rightful rules: authority, order, and the foundations of global governance. Int Stud Quart 54:587–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazarr M (2007) The Iraq war and agenda setting. Foreign Policy Anal 3:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer J (1994/1995) The false promise of international institutions. Int Secur 19:5–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer J (2001) The tragedy of great power politics. WW Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Memorandum Irak—Rechtsbasis militair ingrijpen (2003) kenmerk DJZ/IR/2003/158, 29 Apr 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy C (1994) International organization and industrial change: global governance since 1850. Polity Press and Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • New York Times (2002) War with Iraq is not in America’s national interest. Paid advertisement, 26 Sept 2002. http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/P0012.pdf. Accessed 5 Sept 2011

  • Nuti L (2003) The role of the US in Italy’s foreign policy. Int Spectator 38:91–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nye J (2004) Soft power. The means to succeed in world politics. Public Affairs, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Onuf N (1989) World of our making. Rules and rule in social theory and international relations. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapport Commissie van Onderzoek Besluitvorming Irak (2010). Boom, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinalda B (ed) (2011) The Ashgate research companion to non-state actors. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinalda B, Verbeek B (eds) (1998) Autonomous policymaking by international organizations. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds D (1985–1986) A ‘special relationship’? America, Britain and the international order since the Second World War. Int Aff 62:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano S (2006) Berlusconi’s foreign policy: inverting traditional priorities. Int Spectator 42:101–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short C (2004) An honourable deception? New Labour, Iraq and the abuse of power. Simon and Schuster, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder R, Bruck H, Sapin B (1962) Foreign policy decision-making. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stothard P (2004) Thirty days: an inside account of Tony Blair at war. Harper Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek B (2003) Decisionmaking in Great Britain during the Suez crisis. Small groups and a persistent leader, Ashgate

    Google Scholar 

  • Walt S (1985) Origins of alliances. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz K (1979) Theory of international politics. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Weldes J (1999) Constructing the national interest. The United States and the Cuban missile crisis. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt A (1992) Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. Int Organ 46:391–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt A (1999) Social theory of international relations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward B (2004) Plan of attack. The definitive account of the decision to invade Iraq. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Zehfuss M (2002) Constructivism in international relations: The politics of reality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Management Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Bertjan Verbeek

  2. Crismart, Swedish National Defence College, Stockholm, Sweden

    Bertjan Verbeek

Authors
  1. Bertjan Verbeek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bertjan Verbeek .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Utrecht University, School of Law, Utrecht University, Janskerkhof 3, Utrecht, 3512 BK, Netherlands

    I.F. Dekker

  2. Erasmus University, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, Rotterdam, 3062 PA, Netherlands

    E. Hey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Stichting T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Verbeek, B. (2012). Does Might Still Make Right? International Relations Theory and the Use of International Law Regarding the 2003 Iraq War. In: Dekker, I., Hey, E. (eds) Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2011. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, vol 42. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-849-1_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation