By Jennifer Mayer
Constitutional and international agendas surrounding the situation with Iraq were discussed during a panel conference, Nov. 21-22, as a part of BYU Kennedy Center”s International Education Week.
International enforcement is a major concern, said Brett Scharffs, a BYU law professor who participated in the panel.
Scharffs said the United States” ability to control international crises is limited due to the inability of the global bodies to enforce international decisions.
“The international enforcement system occurs across a spectrum, not a hierarchy,” Scharffs said during the discussion.
Any international body”s decision is hard to control and enforce, he said. It is hard to enforce a resolution if a country refuses to comply.
“Military might is sometimes the most effective means of persuasion,” Scharffs said.
As during the Cold War, opposing countries may veto a decision made by an international body, he said. In the case with Iraq, the United States has made the decision to be that enforcer.
“President Bush has thrown down a gauntlet,” Scharffs said. “The U.S. does not need further okay.”
In essence, Iraq has violated Resolution 1441, which outlines procedures for disarmament, he said. In violating the resolution, Iraq has opened a gateway for international enforcement.
Since the Cold War, the United States has played that military force on a number of occasions, Scharff said.
With the possibility of war with Iraq looming ahead, another BYU law professor, Richard Wilkins, discussed constitutional issues in relation to President Bush”s and Congress” power to declare war.
The Constitution clearly defines the steps and responsibilities of the government to declare war, especially that of the president, Wilkins said.
Since World War II, the U.S. government has not followed constitutional procedures of declaring war, he said.
“It is assumed that it is the job of the courts,” Wilkins said. “But it is actually up to Congress, and legislation has a much broader role than has been allowed previously.”
Since Vietnam, a great debate has incurred in defining whose right it is to declare war, Wilkins said. Does it reside with the legislative, executive or judicial branch?
Government officials must agree before declaring war, Wilkins said. In reality, the judicial branch will not declare something unconstitutional in the middle of a war.
“Congress will not order a withdrawal that has once been directly started,” he said.
Questions raised after the Vietnam War instigated new legislation with the War Powers Act, which restructured the process of the U.S. president”s ability to declare war, Wilkins said.
In his final analysis of the issue, Wilkins said he doesn”t think it matters where the power lies, as long as U.S. lawmakers make a decision as a collective body.
Legislation shortly after Vietnam has initiated this ability, Wilkins said.
Other issues discussed throughout the panel included the concerns of the Iraqi people, the history of the area and its resources, the groups in charge of the Iraqi government, the media and the military”s concerns.
