Abstract\nBy March of 2007, some four years after the war began, the Bush administration was still increasing its number of troops in Iraq. The �coalition of the willing� had invaded in 2003, specifically to end the regime of President Saddam Husain who had ruled for more than thirty-five years. What initially appeared as a quick coalition success soon became civil war fuelled by sectarian violence as well as the presence of al-Qaeda and other insurgents. Both pre- and post-invasion periods witnessed intense debate over the legality and morality of the coalition�s military campaign and occupation without UN Security Council Mandate. Using documentary analysis and the �Just War� theory, this study assesses legal and moral arguments that were advanced in support of the coalition�s position. The paper traces the ascendency of President Bush�s doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence. Moreover, arguments for the war�s legality are examined in light of customary International Law and the coalition�s arguments are examined in light of classical criteria for jus ad bellum and jus in Bello. The authors conclude that in spite of the coalition\'s rigorous propaganda campaign, they neither established moral rectitude nor legal basis for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.\nKeywords: The coalition of the willing, Iraq, customary International Law, jus ad bellum and jus in Bello.

Username
Password