After a war, there is always a need to examine the application of the laws of war by the various parties concerned. In the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, and the war of January—February 1991 which brought it to an end, the importance of various international rules about the conduct of occupations and armed conflicts was evident — as were many problems associated with those rules.1


Security Council Geneva Convention Hague Convention Security Council Resolution Civilian Casualty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    I am particularly grateful to Dr Françoise Hampson for her pertinent comments on an earlier draft. Fuller expositions of many aspects of jus in bello in the 1991 war, including chapters by Dr Hampson on ‘Means and Methods of Warfare in the Conflict in the Gulf’, and one by myself on environmental aspects, appear in Peter Rowe (ed.), The Gulf War 1990–91 in International and English Law (London: Routledge, 1993).Google Scholar
  2. 6.
    See for example the Institute of International Law’s 1971 Zagreb Resolution on ‘Conditions of Application of Humanitarian Rules of Armed Conflict to Hostilities in which United Nations Forces May Be Engaged’, Annuaire de Πnstitut de Droit International 54 (1971) pp. 465–70.Google Scholar
  3. 7.
    Air Vice-Marshal R.A. Mason, ‘The Air War in the Gulf’, Survival 33 (1991) p. 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 10.
    ICRC, The Gulf 1990–1991: From Crisis to Conflict (Geneva: ICRC Publications, 1991) pp. 4–5,10–13 and 43–4. This publication summarizes the following ICRC press releases stressing the applicability of international humanitarian law in this crisis: 1640 of 2 August 1990; 1657 of 14 December 1990; 1658 of 17 January 1991; and 1659 of 1 February 1991. These public appeals were reported in some newspapers at the time: see for example report of the previous day’s ICRC press release in the Independent, 18 January 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 12.
    US Department of Defense, Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Congress (Washington DC, 1992) p. 0–7. (Hereafter Final Report to Congress.)Google Scholar
  6. 18.
    Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, It Doesn’t Take a Hero (London: Bantam Press, 1992) p. 421.Google Scholar
  7. 19.
    Oscar Schachter, ‘United Nations Law in the Gulf Conflict’, American Journal of International Law 85, (1991), p. 466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 20.
    On the Amiriya bunker attack, see Final Report to Congress, pp. 0–14 and 15; and General Sir Peter de la Billière, Storm Command: A Personal Account of the Gulf War (London: Harper Collins, 1992) p. 261.Google Scholar
  9. 25.
    US Department of Defense, Conduct of the Persian Gulf Conflict: An Interim Report to Congress (Washington DC: July 1991) p. 12–3; and the April 1992 follow-up, Final Report to Congress p. 0–10.Google Scholar
  10. 28.
    Confirmed in ICRC, The Gulf 1990–1991: From Crisis to ConflictThe ICRCat Work (Geneva: ICRC Publications, 1991) p. 40.Google Scholar
  11. 42.
    For coalition claims of discrimination in attacking nuclear and biological production and development facilities, see House of Commons, Defence Committee, Tenth Report, Preliminary Lessons of Operation Granby (London: HMSO, 1991) pp. 10–11; Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1991, vol. 1 (London: HMSO, 1991) p. 17.Google Scholar
  12. 44.
    US Department of the Navy, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (Washington DC: 1987, NWP 9) p. 5–1.Google Scholar
  13. 47.
    Jonathan T. Howe, ‘NATO and the Gulf Crisis’, Survival 33 (1991), p. 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 55.
    A point remarked upon by Gene I. Rochlin and Chris C. Demchak, ‘The Gulf War: Technological and Organizational Implications’. Survival 33 (1991) p. 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 61.
    For a definition of reprisals and a fine general survey see Françoise Hampson, ‘Belligerent Reprisals and the 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 37 (1988), pp. 818–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 62.
    See for example Glen Plant (ed.), Environmental Protection and the Law of War: A ‘Fifth GenevaConvention on the Protection of the Environment in Time of Armed Conflict? (London: Belhaven Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  17. 64.
    For a strong attack on all aspects of US policy in the 1990–91 conflict see Ramsey Clark, The Fire This Tïme: US War Crimes in the Gulf (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1992).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam Roberts

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations