Protection of Civilians in Internal Armed Conflicts in Iraqi and International Laws

Among the laws are human rights, especially public international law, which derives its strength from international humanitarian law or the law of armed conflict from its customary and written sources, and international agreements negotiated by states and ratified by the signatures of member states. Therefore, its rules are mandatory and may not be violated. However, to this day, some states continue to violate the rules and principles of international law enshrined in their conventions and practices, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) and Additional Protocols I and II (1977), which aim to protect civilians over the years. In times of armed conflict, in which most of these countries violated international law, the occupation of Iraqi lands in 2003 (by the United States), the non-Islamic State organization (ISIS) in 2014, especially its recent aggression against Iraq. The study by including some cases committed by these forces against defenseless civilians in Iraq, and among the most prominent of these cases are the justifications provided by the coalition countries to justify the military intervention in Iraq. The organization was responsible for the events of September 11, 2001, through the former regime’s ties to the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda. Several cases demonstrate the level of arrogance these forces have toward the civilian Iraqi people, whose lives, dignity, and property are protected under international law. The Council worked on defining the legal status of Iraq from an international perspective. In light of its decisions, the most important of which is Resolution 1483, which concluded that the American and British occupation forces did not condemn the intervention process, nor did they demand the withdrawal of the intervention forces from Iraq. The study also notes the role of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the creation of the Voluntary Aid Society – the National Red Cross or Red Crescent Society in the future. The most important Special Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, established in 2002, are cited as the first international courts capable of trying individuals accused of crimes against humanity and other crimes. The results of the study stated that the main justification for the intervention of the coalition countries in Iraq was its possession of weapons of mass destruction that threaten American national security and threaten international peace and security, but after the intervention process, this logic was proven wrong, which was confirmed by the investigation of the (George Bush) Committee on the arms embargo on Iraq, and the confirmation Security Council that Iraq did not possess these weapons at the time of the issuance of Resolution (1762 /). 2007), decided in paragraph (1) to terminate the mandate of the United Nations Monitoring, Investigation and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency without discovering any prohibited weapons.