Yet Crimea, Syria and Iran are the bad guys (btw Iran was funded by the US - yes same regime that now the US cries against).
Remember, international "law" doesn't exist. There is no legal/illegal. It's all governered by treaties and gentlemen's agreements between nation's.
Another example: international law bans torture, enforceable under ”universal jurisdiction”. That might be one reason why Bush and Cheney haven’t been to Europe since their days in office.
Not an expert neither but to my understanding, there is no real "democracy" in the international law scenario, and the US has the capacity to veto any UN resolution. If you notice, the sanctions that states like Syria, Cuba or Venezuela have faces are just a decission of the US.
No wonder so many people talks about "US imperialism"...
TLDR; It's dubious that resolution 1441 provided legal cover for the invasion of Iraq.
See this[1] for a discussion
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...
US has the upper hand in many political matters, and they force their allies to agree with them, even if they don't want to, (of course they benefit from it too). Why do they have the upper hand? Because of their technological advantages and resources. Since you are an ignorant, you'd probably say, of course, US is advanced and they do good and bad with it. Of course, but then read a bit more and you arrive at one of the very dark corners of history, slavery. Then, apply your logic, "how has the US illegally took so many people as slave in all over the world? Illegal under which jurisdiction? For that being consider as slavery, there would be only potential jurisdictions, no? International and/or their own. If it were International, the US would face sanctions. If it were illegal under US law, how could it persist?" (Quoting you while adjusting your logic to slavery)
Ok, now draw an example from today's world. Just look at the current Iran's deal and how US is ignoring the rest of the world. As far as I know, this is the first time that EU ever slightly has decided to -- publicly -- face US and stick to the deal. This is an exception only because Trump is _Trump_ and doesn't seem to respect anything, including EU, and EU had enough of him (and worked hard for the deal). However, if Trump was not as blunt about the whole situation and would have approached it differently, both EU and US probably dismantle the deal and escalate everything easily. Why? Because EU would have been convinced/forced, by a rather more rational US president, to get out of the deal. Again, look back at history, and you'll see that's what happened at Afghanistan and Iraq wars too.
Long story...