Law In The Rwandan Genocide

Law is a tool to regulate interactions amongst the members of a society. Oppenheim defined International law as the name for the body of customary and conventional rules which are considered binding by civilised states in their intercourse with each other. In Sir Cecil Hurst’s view, International Law is the aggregate of rules which determines the rights which one state is entitled to claim on behalf of itself, or its nationals against another state. The definition and aspects of International Law evolved over time in order to suit the changing world order and new situations. International organisations and institutions such as United Nations organisation (UNO), World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organisation (WTO)

The international community showed a very lackadaisical approach and did not intervene. The lack of political will showed by USA, the alleged support given to perpetrators of this genocide by France, the bureaucratic nature of United Nations are some of the factors that resulted in one of the most horrendous crimes which could have been prevented if the international community had shown a respect for the international law.

The UN Secretariat is the United Nations’ bureaucratic arm. One of its responsibility is to convey important information to decision-making bodies such as the Security Council, which is responsible for “the maintenance of international peace and security” (UN Charter 5(23)). The Secretariat and the Secretary General were vehemently criticised in their failure to convey the information before and during the Rwandan genocide. Belgium, UN, France and the US showed scant respect for the international law and order and in order to protect their vested interest allowed the genocide to happen. The Genocide Convention of 1948 talks of the legal obligations which these states have clearly failed to follow. Yet, almost two decades have passed by and there is still no sign of any concrete action to be taken against any of the countries who clearly acted in their own vested interest and breached the international

The legal right to determine how to enforce its own resolutions lies with the Security Council alone (UN Charter Articles 39-42), not with individual nations. Other member of UNSC declared that Council Resolution 1441 did not authorize any "automaticity" in the use of force against Iraq, and that a further Council resolution was needed were forced to be used. But the US supported the use of war based on the intelligence from the CIA and MI6 stating that Iraq controlled WMD.

The US use of force was based upon Iraq's breach of several UN resolutions, especially UNSC Resolution 1441. The invasion began in March that year and Hussein was captured by December. Britain joined the invasion in the same year. The Chilcot inquiry was launched in 2009, as British troops withdrew from Iraq, tasked with investigating the run-up to the 2003 US-led invasion and the subsequent occupation. Following were the observations of Chilcot