In a statement released Thursday (local time) in northern Iraq, Human Rights Watch said that US forces have a responsibility to prevent the eruption of inter-ethnic violence as they prepare an assault on the city of Kirkuk.

[W]idespread reprisal killings, retaliatory forced displacement, and other acts of violence against resettled families are possible once tens of thousands of forcibly displaced people return to reclaim their homes. Oil-rich Kirkuk, currently under Iraqi government control, has been the target of U.S. aerial bombing for the last several days. U.S. paratroopers have landed in Iraqi Kurdistan and it is likely that U.S. and coalition ground forces will enter the city in the near future....

Since the 1991 Gulf War, the Iraqi government has systematically expelled an estimated 120,000 Kurds, Turkomans, and Assyrians from Kirkuk and other towns and villages in this oil-rich region. Most have settled in the Kurdish-controlled northern provinces. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has resettled Arab families in their place in an attempt to reduce the political power and presence of ethnic minorities, a process known as "Arabization."....Human Rights Watch researchers now based in Iraqi Kurdistan said the United States has not prepared for returning displaced residents of Kirkuk.

Human Rights Watch called on all parties to the conflict in Iraq to respect the safety and freedom of movement rights of all Iraqi citizens, including their right to choose a place of residence, and to move to a place of safety either inside or outside Iraq.

Under international humanitarian law, the U.S.-led forces have a duty to restore and ensure public order and safety in territories under their authority from the moment they establish effective control over them. In order to do so, they need to devote enough personnel to ensure public safety, grant protection to all noncombatants, and prevent the occurrence of acts of reprisal or revenge.

Read the complete text of the HRW press release and review the HRW report on Iraq's forcible expulsion of ethic minorities.

According to press reports, the US House of Representatives Thursday passed a resolution calling on Iraq to respect the terms of the Geneva Conventions concerning treatment of prisoners of war (the actual text of the resolution, H.Con.Res. 118, is not yet available from THOMAS). And in other other Iraq-related legislative action, the House has referred to committee a resolution calling on Coalition forces to avoid damage to Iraq's cultural antiquities.

From Qater News Agency:

BAGHDAD, MARCH 27 (QNA) - IRAQ DENIED A CHARGE BY BRITISH PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR ON THURSDAY THAT IT HAD EXECUTED BRITISH SOLDIERS CAPTURED IN THE U.S.-LED WAR ON IRAQ. IN AN INTERVIEW WITH ABU DHABI TELEVISION, IRAQI INFORMATION MINISTER MOHAMMAD SAEED AL-SAHAF SAID THAT BLAIR HAD 'LIED TO THE PUBLIC' ABOUT THE SOLDIERS AND ADDED: 'WE HAVEN'T EXECUTED ANYONE.''TO LAUNCH A PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR ON US HE SAID YOU HAVE EXECUTED (THEM),' SAHAF SAID. 'WE HAVEN'T EXECUTED ANYONE. THEY ARE EITHER KILLED IN THE BATTLEFIELD, AND MOST OF THEM ARE KILLED BECAUSE THEY ARE COWARDS, AND THE REST ARE CAPTURED.'

Read more transmissions from the Qatar News Agency.

US ambassador John Negroponte walked out of the UN Security Council Thursday as his Iraqi counterpart blasted the United States in a spontaneous and impassioned speech at the end of Thursday's UN Security Council open meeting on Iraq. Watch recorded video of the speech - and Negroponte's exit - from the UN. Here is a partial summary of the Iraqi statement, issued by the UN Information Service:

Despite the fact that Iraq had not crossed the Atlantic to attack the United States, had no link to the 11 September attacks and had no weapons of mass destruction, United States forces had crossed the Atlantic to control his region. The Council had been fooled when it was told by the United States and the United Kingdom that the Iraqi people would receive their forces with flowers and hugs. The Iraqi army, up until now, had not confronted United States forces. It was the Iraqi people who were facing the forces today. When the United States found itself before a fierce resistance by the Iraqi people, it had started to destroy them.

Yesterday, he continued, United States forces had destroyed 200 houses and continued to destroy residential areas. The Iraqi people would defend the principles of the United Nations and those of peace and security. He warned the Council that the United States and the United Kingdom were about to start a war of extermination against the Iraqi people. Halting the war was most important. He called on the Council to adopt a resolution to halt the war and restore peace. He added that Iraq was committed to the Geneva Conventions, and the world would see nothing from Iraq but what it did in self-defence.

A full summary of all of Thursday's Security Council statements is available from the UN.

French Foreign Minister Dominque de Villepin spoke Thursday to the International Institute for Strategic Studies for London on the theme "Law, Force and Justice":

Through the Iraq crisis, two different understandings of the world are coming head to head. They reflect different relationships between law and force, between international legitimacy and the defence of national security interests.

According to one such understanding, democracy can be imposed from the outside. Having faith in the power of the law is therefore something of a delusion. International legal tools become constraints more than safeguards of international security. Some even say that the US would assume its responsibilities alone and thereby show its strength while Europe's position reflects its weakness. It also means that some governments might decide of their own accord to strike first given the scope of the threats. Self-defence then knows no bounds or constraints....

The alternative is not between force and law. Force must serve the law. Force must be contained by the law to reverse Pascal's words: "unable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just." Asserting the primacy of the law is not an admission of weakness. It is a moral and political obligation, the prerequisite not only for justice but also for effectiveness. Indeed, only justice can guarantee lasting security.

Conversely, if the international system is still seen as unjust, if force always seems to prevail over the law, if the opinions of the peoples are disregarded, then destabilizing factors will grow stronger, proliferation programmes will develop, power play will go on needlessly, and hostility towards Western democracies will be increasingly manipulated.

Read the complete text of the French Foreign Minister's speech, now available in English from the French Embassy in Washington, DC.

Excerpts from statements by Coalition partners Britain and the United States made in today's continued UN Security Council open meeting on Iraq:

JEREMY GREENSTOCK (United Kingdom) said that many speakers had referred to the 12-year period in which the peaceful disarmament of Iraq was again and again attempted by the Council. No one had worked than the British Government to try to bring about that objective. No one had worked harder in recent weeks than the British Government to try to unite the Council around a position that would have maintained the vigorous lines adopted unanimously in resolution 1441. He was aware that Member States, perhaps without exception, found the current situation deeply disappointing and distasteful. But, they could not set aside the clear evidence that Iraq was repeatedly defying the United Nations in refusing complete disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction under the terms of successive resolutions.

Coalition action was, therefore, now under way to enforce Council decision on complete Iraqi disarmament, he said. That action was being undertaken in a manner that was directed only at the regime responsible for the failure to respect the United Nations. Everything was being done to minimize the effect on civilians, to leave the infrastructure intact, and to ensure that the necessary humanitarian assistance reached the Iraqi people as quickly as possible. The United Kingdom accepted, in full, its obligation under international humanitarian law....

The action which the United Kingdom was now taking with its coalition partners to uphold United Nations resolutions was both legitimate and multilateral, he said. The use of force was authorized in the current circumstances under Security Council resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. A broad coalition of well over 40 States was supporting the action materially or politically. The United Kingdom deeply regretted the differences within the Council that had marked the past few months of discussion on the subject. Now was the time to unite to ensure that the United Nations and the international community could act quickly to meet the needs of the Iraqi people, during and after military action.

JOHN NEGROPONTE (United States) shared many of the concerns expressed by speakers, as well as welcomed the expressions of support. He disagreed with those who still avoided the central issue. The responsibility for the current situation lay with the Iraqi regime, which had for 12 years refused to give up its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had repeatedly refused to respond to peaceful means to bring about its compliance with relevant resolutions and disarm. The response of the United States and the coalition forces was entirely appropriate. It was not a war against the people of Iraq, but against the regime that had denied the will of the international community for more than 12 years.

It was regrettable, he noted, that Iraq had not taken the final opportunity afforded to it in resolution 1441. The response of the coalition was not illegitimate. It had long been recognized that the material breach of obligations removed the basis of the ceasefire and authorized the use of force. Resolution 1441 had found Iraq in continued material breach. The use of force was authorized under resolution 678. As President Bush had stated, the United States was acting to compel Iraq’s compliance with resolutions because the risk of inaction was too great to tolerate....

As the coalition acted to enforce relevant Council resolutions and the international community joined together to meet the humanitarian needs of Iraq, much thought had been given to the future of Iraq, he said. It was necessary to first demonstrate to the Iraqi people that the United States sought to liberate, not to occupy. Second, Iraq must be disarmed from all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons production capacity. Third, its terrorist infrastructures must be destroyed. Also, Iraq’s territorial integrity and sovereignty must be preserved. The United States and the coalition would provide security to prevent chaos and retribution. It was necessary to begin the process of economic and political reconstruction to put the Iraqi people on a path to prosperity and freedom. Reconstruction would be a challenging task and success would only be possible by working with Iraq’s neighbours and the international community. United States forces would stay as long as necessary to restore the sovereignty of Iraq to the Iraqi people, and not one day more.

Watch recorded video of the UK and US statements. A full summary of Thursday's statements is now available from the UN.

US Central Command said Thursday that, as it was now sure US guided munitions released early Wednesday morning (ET) had hit their targets in Baghdad, the market bombing that killed at least 14 civilians could be the work of an errant, and perhaps old, Iraq surface-to-air missile. The CENTCOM spokesman reiterated that "we have no intention of harming civilians unnecessarily or destroying infrastructure and buildings that we don't intend to attack." More information on the CENTCOM statement is available from the State Department.

From Thursday's US Central Command briefing in Qatar:

Our field commanders report that in the vicinity of An Najaf, as one example, Iraqi regime forces are seizing children from their homes, telling their families that the males must fight for the regime or they will all face execution.

International law prohibits the recruitment of children for participation in hostilities. Article 38 of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child says:

1. States Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law applicable to them in armed conflicts which are relevant to the child.

2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities.

3. States Parties shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen years into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, States Parties shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.

4. In accordance with their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect the civilian population in armed conflicts, States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure protection and care of children who are affected by an armed conflict.

Iraq is a party to the Convention; the United States has signed but not yet ratified the treaty. Associated with the Convention is the 2000 Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, which extends the range of protection upwards to 18 years. The US ratified the Optional Protocol in December 2002.

Provisions similar to Article 38 of the Child Rights Convention can be found in Article 77(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions:

The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, the Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.

Unfortunately, Iraq is not a party to this instrument. It should also be noted that Article 8 of the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court grants the court power to prosecute war crimes such as "conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities." Neither Iraq nor the United States are party to the Rome Statute.

From Thursday's UN humanitarian briefing in Amman, Jordan:

Q: Michael Jansen, Irish Times: Yesterday a British military briefing officer in Qatar confirmed that they were using Depleted Uranium [tank shells]. What would the legal, health, environmental implications of the use of these shells?

Q: These weapons are not addressed by any international treaty; so they are not illegal. UNEP [United Nations Environment Programme] has conducted a number of scientific studies of the environmental effect of these weapons in the Balkans. What we find is that when these weapons are used, you can detect a very low level of radiation in the target zone. However, they are very low & don't cause any significant risks. There are of course there are some remaining scientific uncertainties, notably whether they can enter ground water after a few years & whether they can be re-suspended in the air with the dust being kicked out with wind, human activity & potentially breathed in. Our view is that DU weapons are used, it's important to clean up the targeted sites & also conduct scientific assessments of the area.

A complete transcript of Thursday's UN humanitarian briefing from Amman is now available from the UN.

The legality of depleted uranium weapons is somewhat less clear in the view of the International Committee of the Red Cross:

According to international humanitarian law — an explicit formulation appears in Article 36 of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions, which is binding on 157 States — States are required to ensure that any new weapon, means or method of warfare does not contravene existing rules of international law. These rules prohibit weapons, means or methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, which have indiscriminate effects or which cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. The ICRC strongly urges all States which study, develop, acquire or adopt munitions containing depleted uranium to carry out such legal reviews if they have not already done so, and would welcome an exchange of views and information on these reviews. Within alliances or groups of States, it seems particularly important that appropriate legal review mechanisms should be established on weapons, means or methods of warfare which may be used by such alliances or groups of States or that an exchange of information on national legal reviews should take place.

Read more ICRC information on depleted uranium munitions.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation surveys some of the legalities of war...

In a statement released in London Thursday in the wake of Iraqi accusations made Wednesday that Coalition forces were using cluster bombs, Amnesty International called upon the US, UK and Iraqi authorities to immediately halt the use of "weapons which are inherently indiscriminate or otherwise prohibited under international humanitarian law," especially landmines and cluster bombs that post latent threats to civilians. Amnesty noted that the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (the Ottawa Treaty), which entered into force on 1 March 1999 and has been ratified by combatants UK and Australia (but not the US or Iraq), forbids the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention and transfer of anti-personnel weapons. Listen to an audio briefing by AI's Brian Wood.

An additional AI briefing on indiscriminate weapons notes that Article 51 (4) of 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (to which the US, but not Iraq, is a party) prohibits indiscriminate attacks, including "those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective" and "those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol".

Here are summaries of key statements made so far in today's continued UN Security Council open meeting on Iraq::

PAUL HEINBECKER (Canada) said that the Council was meeting at a dark hour. He had hoped that a compromise would have been possible and that the Iraqi regime could have been disarmed without war. However, that had not been possible. Now, the priority should be the victims of the war, who needed protection and assistance. The first duty was to meet the urgent needs of the Iraqis victimized by their own regime. The Council had committed itself to protecting civilians in armed conflict. Every effort must be made to avoid civilian casualties and provide for safe and unimpeded access for humanitarian personnel.

He appealed to all concerned to fulfil those undertakings. He particularly appealed to neighbouring countries to provide access for humanitarian agencies to those in need. He also called on them to respect international law and shelter those refugees who flee across international borders. The longer and more destructive the war, the greater the needs would be. He urged the Council to adapt the oil-for-food programme without delay.....

FAWZI BIN ABDUL MAJEED SHOBOKSHI (Saudi Arabia) said that the Arab and Islamic region was facing a war that had grave repercussions on the international system and on international relations. War was proof of the failure of diplomacy, and the failure of the United Nations and the Council to undertake its responsibilities with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security. As soon as it had become apparent that war was on the horizon, Saudi Arabia had begun to exert efforts to arrive at a peaceful settlement. It had started moving at various levels and proposed clear and logical ideas anchored on the need for Iraq to fully comply with Council resolutions. Regrettably, despite all efforts and international opposition to an unjust war, “the sword had fallen”. War was a loss both to the victors and the defeated.

Reason dictated that military action against Iraq be brought to a halt and diplomatic efforts be resumed, he said. Work should be geared to preserve Iraq’s national security and its national institutions. Everyone was aware of the humanitarian and ecological devastation that would be unleashed on Iraq as a result of the war. He categorically opposed the occupation of Iraq, whose people did not need to be governed by outside forces. The failure of the Iraqi Government to comply with Council resolutions should not be visited on the people of Iraq, who had suffered for so long. He insisted on the unity, independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Iraq, and called for an immediate end to war and withdrawal of foreign forces. The Council was the party to decide whether Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction.

NASSER AL-KIDWA, Observer for Palestine, said that the Council was meeting today to discuss the destructive war waged against Iraq and its repercussions, including the suffering of the Iraqi people. He hoped the Council would be able to put an end to what was taking place. It had become clear that the war was waged outside the purview of the Council, and that the majority of the members of the Council and the United Nations were against the war. The war would entail far-reaching and deep repercussions on the Middle East region and on the system of international relations. Therefore, the international community must think deeply to arrive at an acceptable solution.

The Palestinian people could not but oppose the use of force in settling international disputes, he stated. They stood in full solidarity with the Iraqi people in their suffering, caused by military operations by forces led by the United States. He supported the resolutions adopted by the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab Summit, as well as that of the Ministerial Council of the League of Arab States. He called for the immediate cessation of war and the withdrawal of foreign forces from the territory of Iraq. He condemned any attempt to erode Iraqi independence.

In addition, he urged full respect for the Geneva Conventions. He welcomed the new interest and importance attached by some to those Conventions. Change could not come from outside or be imposed on peoples, particularly by military force....

More summaries are available from the United Nations.

A heated, unscheduled debate on the legality of the war in Iraq erupted Thursday at the UN Conference on Disarmanent in Geneva. A representative of Syria ignited the exchange by saying the war had nothing to do with international law but was "the law of the jungle", and thousands of innocent Iraqis were being killed. A stormy exchange followed, also involving delegates from the United States, Iraq and The United Kingdom:

J. SHERWOOD McGINNIS (United States) said regrettably, the intervention by Syria was one in which a fair number of half-truths and untruths were contained. Regrettably, the international community needed to act because after 12 years of lack of cooperation and dozens of United Nations resolutions and the sending of hundreds of weapons inspectors, Iraq had failed to disarm. The only reason Security Council resolution 1441 was passed, and the only reason Iraq allowed inspectors back onto its territory, was the threat of the use of force. The cooperation mentioned by Syria on the part of Iraq, moreover, was very grudgingly given, and very circumspect. The US had worked within the United Nations on this subject for 12 years, and had sponsored and supported a number of resolutions. The action now under way in Iraq was based on former Security Council resolutions.

NAWFAL AL-BASRI (Iraq) said the Iraqi Government had cooperated with the weapons inspectors and had given them every possibility to complete their mission. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix and others had confirmed this in official statements. Iraq had cooperated with international organizations because it was concerned with respecting international resolutions. It had authorized the over-flight of its territory and the destruction of unauthorized Salmud II missiles. The weapons inspectors had asked for additional time to complete their jobs and had indicated that there was effective cooperation from Iraq. Thus, Iraq had been surprised by the United States’ declaration that international resolutions had not been respected. The United States had launched a war which had not been internationally authorized. The United States administration had taken neither the opinion of numerous countries condemning the war nor international public opinion into account.

This was not a clean war, said Mr. Al-Basri. The suffering of the Iraqi people could be witnessed on a daily basis as facilities, including electrical and drinking water installations, were destroyed. The United States’ real objective was to destroy Iraq; the United States had a modern military arsenal capable of targeting objectives, yet still there had been civilian deaths. How could one talk about international legitimacy when the American bombing attacks killed children under the age of ten? The people of Iraq would not welcome the coalition soldiers with happiness, as the United States had thought. The people of Iraq had shown fierce opposition in the face of aggression.

The United Nations should intervene to put an end to this illegitimate aggression, which flagrantly violated its Charter, said Mr. Al-Basri. The United States’ actions enshrined the law of the jungle and scorn for international legitimacy. The objectives of the US were now clear; the US wanted to bring an end to the Iraqi regime and to control Iraq’s natural resources, as well as those of the whole region. This war was being waged against the Arab world as a whole. The United States had allocated to itself the right to "liberate" Iraq, yet it was killing women, children and old people. The world today demanded respect for international legitimacy and law; allowing States to impose their policies through the threat and use of war contributed to instability and chaos, which threatened international peace and security.

MR. SARRA (Syrian Arab Republic) said he did not agree with what the United States had just said; what the US had said did not square with the truth.

MR. BROUCHER (United Kingdom) said the actions the United Kingdom was taking along with the United States had been undertaken only after much thought, and the United Kingdom was convinced that these actions were in keeping with international law and Security Council resolutions. Iraq clearly could have avoided this situation if it had cooperated with Security Council resolutions. It had not, and Iraq had a history of using weapons of mass destruction against its neighbours and its own people, and so something had to be done. The best message the Conference could send to the world would be to deal with its own agenda. That was what the Conference should do.

MR. AL-BASRI (Iraq) said the United Kingdom had alleged that the current situation in Iraq was the result of non-compliance with international resolutions. But what had happened to those international resolutions designed to protect the Palestinian people? Why were the UK and the US not equally severe with Israel? Those resolutions condemning Israel had met with a favorable international response, yet nothing was done to implement them. What were the international standards referred to by the United Kingdom when Iraq was condemned and international resolutions on Israel ignored?

A complete summary of proceedings is available from the UN Information Service.

Thursday's Iraq humanitarian situation report is now available from the UN Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq. Highlights:

The security situation at the dividing lines between the centre/south and three northern governorates is unstable because of ongoing air attacks and reports of sporadic shelling. Elsewhere in the north the situation is calm. Schools remain closed but other social institutions are functioning. People continue to return to major urban centres and economic activity is increasing. ICRC, UN agencies and NGOs continue to provide assistance to the population in need.

ICRC is negotiating cross border operations to bring humanitarian assistance to Baghdad. In the city, all hospitals are working, but health personnel are concerned with a possible increase in the number of war-wounded. ICRC, UNICEF and NGO staff are providing assistance and relief items to hospitals and child institutions. ICRC reconnected the pumping units and power control system of the water treatment plant serving southern areas of Baghdad, which now operates at 60% of its capacity.

In Basrah, water supply continues to be problematic. ICRC partially restarted the main water pumping facility serving Basrah city. Spare parts are needed to start the three remaining back-up generators. 50% of the city's 1.5 million inhabitants now have access to drinking water. Urban centres south of Basrah (Al-Zubayr, Safwan and Jabjud) have been disconnected from the water-supply network since last Friday and at present it is impossible to carry out repair work in these areas. WHO is pre-positioning 5 cholera kits to Kuwait for 50,000 beneficiaries. WFP agreed to deliver bread to Basrah as soon as the conditions allow.

Read the complete text of the Iraq situation report from UNOSCI.

UPDATE [3:24 PM ET]: A transcript of an additional UN humanitarian briefing from Un offices in Amman, Jordan, is now available.

Speaking at Camp David Thursday, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair accused Iraq of executing the two British soldiers whose bodies were shown on television Wednesday, an act which he described as "yet one more flagrant breach of all the proper conventions of war."

Article 13 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War says:

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention....

Article 50 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field also declares "wilful killing" of protected persons - generally read to include sick and wounded, and captured or surrendering soldiers - to be a "grave breach".

The BBC reports that US President Bush and UK Prime Minister Blair, meeting at Camp David, say they will seek UN resolutions to secure humanitarian relief and an "appropriate post-war administration" for Iraq. Recorded video of their Thursday morning press conference is now available from the White House.

Speaking Thursday at the 59th General Assembly of the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva following a Commission decision - previously reported in JURIST's Paper Chase - not to hold a special session to debate humanitarian and human rights consequences of the current conflict in Iraq, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Sergio Vieira de Mello made a fresh appeal to all parties in the war to respect fundamental civil liberties and observe meticulous precautions in protecting civilians:

As High Commissioner for Human Rights, my principal concern, as is yours, is for the human rights of all people the world over and the need for these rights to be protected. In a statement I issued on the day that hostilities began in Iraq, and which I reiterated before you when introducing my report on the work of my Office – and which I repeat again now – I called on all parties to the conflict to respect fundamental human rights and humanitarian law and to observe meticulous precautions in protecting civilians.

I repeat this because it can never be said enough – not least while we continue to see, in conflict after conflict, civilians bearing the brunt of the violence.

We must also remember that the human rights crisis in Iraq did not begin a week ago. The human rights of the Iraqi people have been violated for many years, as has been abundantly documented by the Special Rapporteurs of this Commission on the situation of human rights in Iraq, as well as reputable human rights experts in non-governmental organizations....

Our concern also requires us to recall that the Iraqi people have also suffered as a result of the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq.

We are now over a week into hostilities. Prisoners have been taken by both sides. Combatants and civilians have been killed; many have been injured. Property has been damaged. Water, sanitation and other basic necessities essential for sheer survival are unavailable to significant numbers of civilians. No-one in this room can be anything but increasingly concerned for the welfare of the people of Iraq.

In such difficult circumstances as war, indeed particularly in war, humanitarian law and fundamental human rights must be protected on the ground by the parties to the conflict. No-one can be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life. No one can be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. No-one can be arbitrarily arrested or detained. Persons deprived of their liberty should be afforded all the guarantees provided by international law, and prisoners of war should be treated humanely and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention.

I must also call on all parties to observe the rules applicable in armed conflict, particularly the principle of distinction between combatants and non-combatants.

Parties must never direct attacks against the civilian population or civilian objects, even if the purpose is to strike at a military target. This is true even if human shields are being used. Conversely, states must never use such an abhorrent practice as intentionally placing civilians in harm's way.

States must never make civilians the object of attack and must consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilians and the military. They must preserve infrastructure and other assets essential to the civilian population – including, of course, religious and historical sites – as well as protect the environment of Iraq. Tragic experience demonstrates that the precision of modern weapons, particularly at long range, is not reliable, not least in densely populated, urban areas. So let me state quite clearly here, and this is an appeal, a strong, urgent appeal: If there is any doubt at all, restraint and refrain must be the watchwords. In other words, do not attack that particular target.

There must be no reprisals against the civilian population. Humanitarian assistance must not be hindered. In short, the parties must take every possible precaution to ensure that civilian casualties do not occur.

All these, you will agree with me, are categorical imperatives.

A complete transcript of the UN High Commissioner's remarks is available from UNHCHR.

Thursday's field reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross on humanitarian conditions in Iraq yesterday (March 26) are now online. From Baghdad:

The ICRC doctor and his assistant visited four hospitals treating war-wounded patients (Baghdad has 33 hospitals in total but the ICRC focuses primarily on facilities receiving war wounded patients). Three of these hospitals reported 60 wounded and 15 deaths following the bombardments of the night from 25 to 26 March and the morning of 26 March. These figures cannot be independently confirmed. The ICRC provided one hospital with 200 blankets and another with a first-aid kit. Further assistance is planned for today, 27 March, in the form of surgical and medical materials such as dressing kits and anaesthetic drugs.

From Basra:

Despite the progress made yesterday, the situation remains precarious since all water treatment plants and pumping stations now rely on back-up generators. These generators only provide a fraction of the normal power available to the water facilities, and their operation and maintenance require continuous supervision, not to mention the difficulties of obtaining fuel and spare parts.... There have been reports and statements that the water in Basra is unfit for consumption. To the best of the ICRC's knowledge, the water is salty but treated; apart from its taste, the bacteriological quality of this water is comparable to that existing before the supply was disrupted, and is also comparable to the quality of water currently produced in many other parts of the country.

On displaced persons:

The ICRC continues to monitor closely the situation of internally displaced people, who fall into two distinct categories. On the one hand, many Kurdish families have left urban centres to seek shelter with relatives or in previously organized accommodation. This group is likely to return to urban centres as soon as the security situation improves. The second category is more vulnerable and includes many people who have fled government-controlled areas of Iraq; they are receiving less assistance and support from the local population. The local authorities are registering displaced people falling into both categories and housing those without family in schools, mosques and vacant buildings. A few of the displaced have been returning to urban areas to escape harsh weather conditions in the mountains.

Read the complete text of Thursday's ICRC field reports.

Speaking to reporters Thursday morning (ET) at UN Headquarters in New York, UNMOVIC chairman Dr. Hans Blix said that he has not been advised by Coalition forces that Iraq has used any proscribed weapons - SCUD missiles, chemical or biological agents. He said he did not think the Iraqis would use prohibited weapons because, given their denials of possessing any, that would make them liars and change world opinion on the conflict. He also said that UN weapons inspections teams were prepared to resume their work, but they had not been asked to do so by the Security Council. Watch recorded video of his comments from the UN. The draft work program[PDF] for further inspections that Dr. Blix presented to the Security Council on March 19, just prior to the outbreak of war, is also available.

Wednesday's report from the UN Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq is now available online.

According to a Reuters report Thursday, the UN Commission on Human Rights has rejected a call by eight countries, including Russia and Syria, for a special sitting of the Commission to consider "the human rights and humanitarian situation in Iraq as a consequence of the war". Australia, Canada the EU and others opposed the proposal, noting that the UN Security Council was already addressing the issue.

UPDATE [11:41 AM ET]: A summary of the debate on the proposal is now available from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The UN Security Council reconvenes today to continue its debate on the Iraq war. Watch live video from the UN [because of high traffic on the UN servers, connectivity may be intermittent].

On AP Thursday, Jane Macartney says that preventive war opens the way to new rules on conflict.... New Zealand law professor and Member of Parliament Wayne Map explains in the National Business Review why the Iraq war is legal.... Lee Bowman of Scripps Howard News Service notes that military use of non-lethal weapons is legally controversial.... Sharon Schmickle of the Minneapolis St. Paul Star Tribune reports that Marines are angry over Iraqi tactics that violate warfare rules, but Bill O'Connell in the Seguin Gazette notes that rules of war differ around the world....

A full summary of the almost 5-hour debate on the Iraq war in the UN Security Council Wednesday is now available online from the UN Press Office. Here are excerpts from summaries of some of the more notable statements:

YAHYA MAHMASSANI, Observer for the League of Arab States, said that the resolution adopted at the end of the Ministerial Council meeting of the League on 23 March had stated that the aggression against Iraq was a violation of the United Nations Charter and the principles of international law, as well as a threat to international peace and security. The League had called for the unconditional withdrawal of United States and British forces from Iraq and held them responsible for all the repercussions of the aggression. It had also called on the Council to adopt a resolution calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of forces. In addition, the League had called for a reaffirmation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq.

MOHAMMAD A. ABULHASAN (Kuwait) said that on 24 March the League of Arab States had adopted its resolution, with reservation from the State of Kuwait, for it did not mention the aggression by Iraq against his country. It was with profound sadness that his country was learning about the innocent victims among the brotherly Iraqi people and the coalition forces, as a result of ongoing hostilities. War should be the last resort, which could be used only after exhausting all other means. His people fully realized the effects of the military operations in Iraq, which had come about as a result of Iraq’s persistence in rejecting Security Council resolutions concerning elimination of weapons of mass destruction. It was important to remember that in 1991 Kuwait had been subjected to occupation by Iraq for seven months.

JOHN DAUTH (Australia) said it was time for Council members to go beyond the acrimony, narrow political ambitions and separate agendas that had hamstrung the Council in recent months and seize the opportunity to make good on their responsibilities. It was time that the Council looked to the future for Iraq and the Iraqi people. It was time that the Council focused on what was at stake, and provided the guidance the international community was waiting for on humanitarian needs, long-term reconstruction, and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. Australia was part of the coalition to disarm Iraq, he said, because it believed an Iraq with weapons of mass destruction represented a grave threat to its own and international security. Its participation in the coalition was in complete accordance with international law. Existing Council resolutions, including 687, 678 and 1441, provided authority for the use of force to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and to restore international peace and security to the region.

UMUT PAMIR (Turkey) said that the Turkish people prayed for an early end of the war in Iraq. He continued to hope that the loss of life would be minimal. Now, on the carcass of aborted diplomacy, the international community had reason to deeply regret the division that had reigned over the Council at the critical moment in history. “We are left with a call to parties to uphold the principles of international humanitarian law. We appeal to them to act in accordance with the established practices thereof”, he said.... Turning to the “vast amount of sheer disinformation with regard to Turkey” in northern Iraq, he said that Turkey upheld the territorial integrity, political sovereignty and national unity of Iraq. It would support the decisions by the Iraqi people through democratic processes. It supported attempts to put a fully representative system in place in Iraq. It also believed that the natural resources of Iraq belonged to all Iraqis. Not a sliver of scheming above and below those basic parameters could be ascribed to Turkey. His country was profoundly hurt by the cynical, self-righteous and at times insulting barrage of rhetoric emanating from certain quarters. The country could not allow another influx of refugees as it did in 1991, however, he said. Any refugee movement should be met inside Iraq and the people in distress should be provided with shelter, food and security. Turkey could not allow the PKK/KADEK terrorists marauding through parts of northern Iraq to abuse conditions of stability. At any rate, it was common knowledge that elements of the Turkish armed forces were stationed in northern Iraq. They had not been sent there yesterday, but years ago in the context of “Operation Northern Watch” in the aftermath of the Gulf War. Thanks to that operation, the Kurds living in northern Iraq received protection and humanitarian relief. Turkey had no intention of entering Iraq. Should it need to, Turkey would not enter Iraq to fight, but to monitor a refugee crisis that might unfold and to respond to immediate security concerns.

JAVAD ZARIF (Iran) said that his country deplored the fact that diplomatic efforts to implement Security Council resolutions on the disarmament of Iraq had been prematurely and arbitrarily aborted, and a sovereign Member of the Organization had become subject of an outright invasion. The unilateral war against Iraq did not meet any standards of international legitimacy. It was not waged in self-defence against any armed attack. Not even by a stretch of imagination could Iraq, after 12 years of comprehensive sanctions, be considered an imminent threat against the national security of the belligerent Powers.... His country, which shared long borders with Iraq and was dangerously close to the theatre of hostilities, had not only received refugees, but also rockets and missiles from both sides, he continued. In that connection, he registered his Government’s strongest protests and underlined the imperative of taking remedial and preventive measures by the belligerents. The provisions of international law should be promoted and enforced in their entirety. Selectivity was not only unacceptable, but, in fact, dangerously impractical.

The UN Security Council's open meeting on Iraq resumes at 9:30 AM ET, with Security Council members themselves slated to speak at the end of the debate.

David Walker has been named the new Dean of Drake University Law School.... Speaking at Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law on March 24, CUA professor Michael Noone argued that "just war" doctrine is improperly understood by most of those citing it as a moral guide to the current conflict in Iraq.... The Minnesota Daily reports that Robert Hudec, a world trade law scholar and professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota Law School, has died aged 68.... US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor visited Duke Law School recently, where she held a public dialogue with Duke Law professor and former US Solicitor General Walter Dellinger.

On March 27, 1866, President Andrew Johnson vetoed a civil rights bill that would later become the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, confering full US citizenship on all slaves. Read President Johnson's veto letter, transmitted to the US Senate.

JURIST's Paper Chase is pre-empting most of its regular coverage to bring you breaking news, rolling updates, analysis, primary texts and multimedia resources on legal aspects of the war in Iraq, together with reports on unfolding humanitarian conditions governed by the Geneva Conventions and other international instruments. Your comments on our coverage are welcome at JURIST@law.pitt.edu.