Institutionalism rejects the realist assumption that international politics is a struggle for power in which military security issues are top priority and argues that instead, force is an ineffective instrument of policy. In order to understand the impact of internationalism on IR theory and its criticisms we must first look at its definition and how it differs from realist perspectives.

The successes or failures of post-conflict reconstruction should be evaluated through a lens that also considers the historical and sociological background of Iraq prior to the war.

The Just War tradition has been seen as a leading perspective on the ethics of war since the writings of St Augustine were rearticulated by Thomas Aquinas. It attempts to provide a framework which validates just conflicts, whilst at the same time applying limits so as to prevent unrestrained warfare. Today, its core principles can be divided into two broad categories: ‘jus ad bellum’ (just resort to war) and ‘jus in bello’ (just conduct in war). For a war to be just, numerous criteria must be satisfied within these categories.

Fundamental problems, both structural and political, continue to characterise the EU-NATO relationship as one of ‘contending coalitions’. Yet, recent shifts in the attitudes of major actors coupled with success in simultaneous operations suggest there is potential for a ‘strategic partnership’ to emerge.

Britain and France were influenced by their own special interests, which, for the British, was principally the maintenance of peace, trade and oil; whilst the French interest was one of maintaining a presence in the area. These would provide the framework towards the mandated territories both respectively administered.