Having invaded Iraq without UN Security Council authorization, the United States was unable to convince many countries to take a meaningful role in helping Iraq deal with its violent past. Always insisting that it would “go it alone”, the United States implemented accountability measures without properly consulting the Iraqi people. Nor did the United States access assistance from the United Nations and international human rights organizations, all of which possess considerable knowledge and experience of a wide range of transitional justice mechanisms. In the end, the accountability measures introduced by the Americans either backfired or were hopelessly flawed. What are needed in Iraq are a secure environment and a legitimate authority to implement a comprehensive transitional justice strategy that reflects the needs and priorities of a wide range of Iraqis. Such a strategy should contain several measures, including prosecutions, reparations, a balanced approach to vetting, truth-seeking mechanisms and institutional reform.

This article provides a summary analysis of the topical question of how far the Security Council may derogate from occupation law. The answer is that the Council may not derogate from those provisions of IHL that are of a specifically humanitarian nature (humanitarian ordre public), that derogations from international law or IHL are in any case not to be presumed and that the Council has not derogated in any way from occupation law in the case of the occupation of Iraq since 2003.

Despite the fact that four years have elapsed since the end of the major combat operations on 9 April 2003 and that the occupation formally ended on 30 June 2004, completion of the requirements for national sovereignty in accordance with the various resolutions of the UN Security Council has not been achieved. The author explains the different rules which were and are applicable to the situation in Iraq and presents the current humanitarian problems from the perspective of international humanitarian law.

Suicide attacks are a recurrent feature of many conflicts. Whereas warfare heroism and martyrdom are allowed in certain circumstances in times of war, a suicide bomber might be committing at least five crimes according to Islamic law, namely killing civilians, mutilating their bodies, violating the trust of enemy soldiers and civilians, committing suicide and destroying civilian objects or properties. The author examines such attacks from an Islamic jus in bello perspective.

The aftermath of the invasion of Iraq set unprecedented challenges to the United Nations in the political and in the human rights spheres. Since the first involvement of the United Nations under Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003), the United Nations, through its assistance mission (UNAMI), has provided support to the process of transition from a military occupation resulting from an unlawful invasion to a fully sovereign and independent state, an objective yet to be fully achieved. The article looks at this trajectory from the angle of the involvement of the Security Council, the legal context, the protection of human rights and the striving for reconciliation, sovereignty and inclusiveness.

This article summarizes a country study on Iraq conducted by the Humanitarian Agenda: 2015 project of the Feinstein International Center, Tufts University, between October 2006 and May 2007.* Based on a sample survey of perceptions of humanitarian action among Iraqis at the community level and among humanitarian agencies in the region, the study focuses on what Iraqis and aid workers believe to be true about the way in which the humanitarian apparatus has functioned or malfunctioned in Iraq, and why. Its findings confirm both the strength of the humanitarian ethos in Iraq and the operational value of principled humanitarianism, but call attention to significant gaps at ground level between ethos and practice.

For almost 60 years, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been doing its best to provide humanitarian assistance to those groups in Iraq that need it most. This article describes the humanitarian operations of the ICRC in Iraq from 1950 to the present day, in particular the support it has given to different minorities in the country and its humanitarian responses to the various armed conflicts. It shows that the legal framework that provides the basis for the ICRC's humanitarian activities also limits its ability to take action in situations beyond the scope of its mandate. In armed conflicts the ICRC faces the risk of being used by governments for their own ends. The challenge for the ICRC is to strike a balance between meeting its treaty-based obligations and exercising its right of humanitarian initiative, and to avoid selecting the recipients of its aid on the sole basis of opportunities made available by governments.

The article describes the context of the ICRC's operations in Iraq, where the Iran–Iraq War in the 1980s, the Gulf War in 1990–1 and the effects of sanctions preceded the 2003 conflict and the spread of sectarian violence. The many serious attacks, including the bombing of the ICRC delegation in Baghdad in 2003 and continuing threats to the ICRC delegates, led to a low-visibility presence and required a new modus operandi in which a real presence on the ground was backed up by remote-control mechanisms for assistance activities in the most insecure areas. Projects to cover essential needs by ensuring water supplies and sewage disposal and supporting health facilities exemplify this new ICRC operational framework. Whereas remote control and support operations enabled programmes of increasing scope and size to be implemented, they could not replace a direct physical presence on the ground, and acceptance-building had to be reinforced through networking and communicational aspects. The authors argue, however, that there is still room for independent, neutral and impartial humanitarian action in Iraq – despite inherent security risks.

The article provides a brief overview of the scale and characteristics of Iraq's refugee population as well as their protection and assistance needs in asylum countries. It also reviews their relative impact on neighbouring states and the sustainability of recent returns.