Comments by "TheEvertw" (@TheEvertw) on "James Ker-Lindsay" channel.

Completely agree with your analysis. In the case of the invasion of Afghanistan, the attack on the World Trade Center was certainly a casu belli. It was real and caused thousands of casualties. Afghanistan failed to surrender the terrorists responsible, and were warned of the consequences for doing so: that the USA would consider that an act of war. Putin has no such justification for invading Ukraine. The invasion of Iraq was less well justified, though Hussain had been slow to comply with the stipulations agreed after the first gulf war. For many, it was unacceptable that Hussain remained in power after starting the first gulf war, and that he was committing well-documented genocide against the Kurds. In hind sight, that was not enough justification for a war. However Putin has none such justification.
3
The big dilemma in this is how far does the sovereignty of a ruler go to hurt his citizens. The West has taken action against rulers actually committing genocide after the cold war, but only after UN declarations condemning that behaviour. This has been the case with e.g. Iraq, Syria, Jugoslavia, and some African conflicts. So, apart from the final Iraq invasion & regime change, I'd say most conflicts in which the west was involved were pretty justified. In the case of Afghanistan, the USA was well justified to declare war on anyone harbouring the operatives who committed the 9/11 attack. That was certainly a casu beli. Many wars have been started over far less.
2
@JamesKerLindsay Thanks! I sometimes feel the UN or the ICJ should define circumstances in which it is permissible to relieve a Head of State of duty, e.g. when he starts committing genocide, as well as a process for resolving the resulting power vacuum.
1