Battle has ended, but the war continues

U.S. President George W. Bush announced a few days ago from aboard the aircraft carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln, the end of the main military operations but not the end of war. He described the military operation in Iraq as an indisputable victory for the coalition forces. Yet, despite the end of the combat phase, the president declared that U.S. troops would remain in Iraq until the accomplishment of their task - the restoration of democracy.

This is not the first time that the U.S. has avoided announcing a definitive end of war, as proved by many other such instances in the past.

In fact, speaking of recent conflicts, neither the first Gulf War nor the Afghanistan war were officially declared as having ended.

So there is no announcement of the end of the combat phase as it will lead to a change in the status of the coalition troops deployed in Iraq.

Indeed, U.S. and British forces would no longer be considered a party to the conflict but an occupying power.

In fact, according to articles 47-78 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention and articles 42-56 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, the law of occupation comes into effect as soon as the territory of a state is invaded by an enemy force and the government of the occupied territory no longer exercises its authority.

The issue of war has always been subject to numerous controversies. Indeed, how can anyone legitimise the use of force and violence in the resolution of conflicts. Yet, wars have existed since the dawn of civilisation and will continue for generations because conflict and rivalry are part of human nature.

However, jurists had to draw certain limits to counter these human impulses by putting restrictions on the use of force.

Thus, international law and customs, more specifically articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter, consider war as a last resort to resolve conflicts between nations, allowing preemptive strikes, but only in the event of an imminent threat.

Nevertheless, a nation cannot declare war against another unless its act is justified under international regulations. Indeed, the UN Charter forbids countries to wage war except in self-defence (article 51), or when authorised by the UN Security Council to preserve or restore international peace (Chapter VII).

Even war has to be regulated by laws that must be respected; the use of force, for instance, cannot continue unlimited and without account. That is why the use of certain types of weapons such as chemical and nuclear arms have been strictly forbidden.

Any violation of the laws and customs of war is considered a war crime and sanctions can be imposed by a war crime tribunal. Under such circumstances, it is forbidden for the parties involved in the conflict to commit any acts that endanger the lives of civilians and which show no regard their dignity, such as murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war.

The law has also codified the treatment of prisoners of war and hostages. Murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war is a striking violation of the international laws of war.
Furthermore, the looting of public or private property is strictly prohibited, together with the destruction of cities or villages which are not justified by military necessity.

Without these regulations there would be no limits to violence and destruction, with the resolution of the matter being left to the judgement of the parties at conflict. Despite these restrictions, violations are still being committed against civilians.

Similarly, laws have been formulated to manage the transitional phase that follows the end of the combat and the control of the country by an enemy force that replaces the national authority.

This phase known as occupation has its own rules. These regulations, which are considered customary law, outline a series of duties and obligations to regulate "the relationship between the civilian population and the occupying forces as soon as the two parties are in contact independently of the duration, the motives and the legality of the military operations".

The occupying forces have the obligation to maintain law and order in the territories under their control. Moreover, they must ensure the protection of civilians and provide them with food, water and health services, not as a charity but as a duty in their role as a substitute for the national authority.

The occupying power can assume the executive functions of the defeated government as well as those of its legislative and judicial authorities.

Generally, a military government ensures the administration of the occupied territories, but this can also be a civilian administration.

On the other hand, the only obligation of civilians is to refrain from participating in hostilities against the occupation forces.

International law defines the end of occupation as the re-establishment of a legitimate government capable of adequately and efficiently administering the territory, and the withdrawal of occupying forces from the enemy territories.

In all cases, the law of occupation continues to be applicable until one year following the termination of hostilities, or it can be extended if the occupying power is still administering the country.

In the case of Iraq, the obligations of an occupying power have been applicable to the coalition forces ever since their occupation of the Iraqi cities. And since the U.S. and the UK are parties to the Geneva Convention, they should have conformed with the international law.

The international law implies the responsibility of the occupying force for public order, safety and welfare in the occupied territories. Yet, violence, looting and lawlessness spread in Iraq because of the power vacuum generated by the fall of Saddam's regime and the reluctance of the U.S. and British forces to immediately assume the role of maintaining law and order.

Although, coalition forces are not the police, nevertheless the law on occupation implies that policing responsibilities must be part of their duties.

Scenes of the plunder of Iraqi government buildings, ministries, shops, hospitals and museums have proved the inefficiency of the occupying forces in preserving law and order and their claim of insufficient forces does not justify the state of chaos and anarchy that prevailed during the first weeks of the occupation.

In addition to the maintenance of order, the U.S. and British forces are responsible for the welfare of Iraqi civilians. They must ensure them the provision of adequate quantities of food, water and medical treatment. Moreover, under occupation, local law remains in force as well as local courts unless the state system has completely collapsed.

In that case, occupying forces may establish tribunals to enforce the law of the occupied territory.

However, they cannot prosecute offences committed before the occupation.

Finally, the occupying power has control over the occupied territory's economy, including its commercial transactions and its currency.

In fact, the occupying power can retain the existing currency, or introduce its own currency, or issue a ne