discipline

 In the absence of a world government, whether or not an action is allowed by a country is determined by the laws set by the UN. When ever a country has taken an action that is questioned  it had to justify its motives. With the war in Iraq the U.S and Britain’s actions have  been questioned both for the initial invasion and the continuation of the war. An issue that has been a constant debate is over  the problems with displacement. (just war).
 The UN’s rules over displacement are extensive, but the gist of it is after country upsets another, if the people  in the country that was upset are having  people out of place, the invading country has an obligation to reestablish  peace.  Basically the U.S has an obligation to Iraq to  create institutions and bring to order peace. (just war) In the article about the just war theory it give the statistics stating two million Iraqis were pushed out of the country and two million were displaced within the country. The U.S has used the law of displacement as an excuse to continue occupation in Iraq. In the just war theory article it states that the united state doing this is the first time an intervening group has used humanitarian outcomes to justify their actions for something that was primarily started for non-humanitarian reasons. Many of the other  countries in the UN have problems with the U.S actions but because of the laws of displacement, there is not much they can do. The humanitarian concerns overrule all other agendas. Though it is obvious the United states has other concerns on there agenda, there is nothing the UN can do because the U.S has an obligation to fixing the displacement issue. 
 Also in the article the controversy over Iraq’s justifications is brought up. The two main reasons stated for the invasion was pre-emption and humanitarian intervention  the experts in the article agree that the U.S  justification for invasion were inadequate and  they explain exactly what the definitions of the U.S’s justifications are and why the justifications are inadequate. Pre-emption according to the National Security Strategy of 2002(just war) is in common language, it is when a country out of fear of attack feels as if it needs to attack the threatening country quickly before the country in fear is attacked. Another, newer, definition of pre-emption is a “guess” that war or a major power shift could occur. This definition does not  have any legal standing in international law. The U.S used the second definition of pre-emption as the justification for Iraq, which is why he experts in the just war theory article say that  the U.S was not justified.
 The second justification for the invasion the U.S uses is Humanitarian intervention. The experts in the just war theory article say that this would have been the U.S strongest justification if they had managed to make all the criteria. The law states that humanitarian intervention applies to ongoing crimes against humanity or as stated in the article “acts that shock the moral conscious of mankind.” as the article state this is usually applicable to genocide or near genocide, and as the article states while Suddam’s acts against the Kurds  and indiscriminate killing against the common people it was not of a high enough degree to call for humanitarian intervention.  The U.S said that Suddam was committing acts against humanity but according to the specifics of the laws, Suddam was in the clear.
 What it comes down to it there are a lot of laws set by the UN and they are very specific. These laws have been used by the United States as justifications for the war. The United States has used the laws to meet its own means. Without a world government there is no one to keep order.
cited
Banta Benjamin. “Just War Theory and the 2003 Iraq war displacement” department of political science. Oxford university press. 2008