Being sovereign is like being pregnant, you either are or you aren’t. If the new Iraqi government doesn’t have ultimate authority and responsibility for the security of the Iraqi people, then it is not truly sovereign.
– Kenneth Roth, Human Rights Watch11
The fact is, Iraq is occupied and Bremer holds the reins of power, command of the security forces and the purse strings. He is the only man who issues decrees and he's unelected. What do you call that?
– Ahmad Fawzi, UN spokesperson in Iraq12
Occupation is a temporary status in international law, defined as exercising effective control over the occupied territory and population. In the decades after the establishment of the United Nations, it became widely recognized in law and practice that imperialism and foreign occupation were antithetical to the right of self-determination, which was understood to be the cornerstone of the post-World War II international order. By law, an Occupying Power gains no sovereign rights, no title to land, and no rights over people. On the contrary, the legal imperative is to end the occupation and allow people to exercise their national and human rights. To this end, Iraqi resistance to U.S. occupation, including by military means, is legitimate so long as the methods of resistance comply with international law by targeting occupation forces rather than civilians or other protected persons.
Genuine legal sovereignty and self-determination require, among other factors, the free exercise of political choice, full responsibility for internal and external security, and complete control over social and economic policy. None of these are present in U.S. proposals for “restoring Iraqi sovereignty” on June 30th. According to senior American political and military officials, U.S. policy envisions selecting or appointing Iraqi leaders and officials while postponing elections and other forms of popular participation;13 retaining control over military and security matters14 and building an extensive network of military bases throughout the country;15 and continuing to transform the Iraqi economy and society along free market lines with disproportionate involvement of U.S. corporations.16 Under these pre-conditions, the promised “transfer of sovereignty” is illusory, a form of political theatre with no relation to the legal requirements for Iraqi self-determination. The U.S. will therefore remain obligated as an occupying power after June 30th, and any agreements to the contrary reached with the new Iraqi authority will have no binding legal effect.
11 Human Rights Watch, “Iraq: No ‘Sovereignty Lite’,” May 24, 2004. http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/iraq8613.htm
12 “No U.N. wand could summon ‘angels’ to lead Iraq,” Reuters, June 3, 2004. http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004060310060002047668&dt=20040603100600&w=RTR&coview=.
13 Yochi Dreazen and Christopher Cooper, “Lingering Presence: Behind the Scenes, U.S. Tightens Grip On Iraq's Future --- Hand-Picked Proxies, Advisers Will Be Given Key Roles In Interim Government --- Facing Friction Over the Army,” The Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2004.
14 Evelyn Leopold, “Iraq Resolution Gives Wide Powers to U.S. Forces,” Reuters, May 24, 2004. http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5240823. John F. Burns and Thom Shanker, “U.S. finds a legal basis to retain force in Iraq,” The New York Times, March 27, 2004. http://www.iht.com/articles/512217.html.
15 Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt, “Pentagon Expects Long-Term Access to Key Iraq Bases,” The New York Times, April 19, 2003. See also GlobalSecurity.org’s Internet resource Iraq Facilities, available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq-intro.htm.
16 Antonia Juhasz, “The Economic Colonization of Iraq: Illegal and Immoral,” Testimony before the World Tribunal on Iraq, May 8, 2004. http://www.worldtribunal-nyc.org/Document/Case_3_Juhasz.pdf.