Top lawyers from Greece are travelling to the International Criminal Court in The Hague on Monday to file a lawsuit against senior UK officials.

They will accuse the prime minister and other senior members of the government and military of breaching international law by attacking Iraq.

The Athens Bar Association (ABA) believes it has strong evidence and is seeking the indictment of Mr Blair.

The ABA will file the lawsuit with the prosecutor of the ICC who will then have to decide whether it merits further investigation.

The court was established to try cases of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

Among those named in the lawsuit are Mr Blair, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

The Greek lawyers announced in May they would try to take legal action against the British Government and military.

They said the war in Iraq breached international treaties such as the Charter of the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions and the ICC's own Statute.

But the British Government has always argued that the invasion of Iraq was in accordance with international law.

The Greek case has several hurdles to clear before proceeding at the ICC.

After the prosecutor has reached his conclusion, three judges must also decide whether the court has jurisdiction.

The ICC has already rejected almost 40 cases over the war in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3101697.stm

As I understand it, the U.N. Charter is an agreement, not a law - so whether the Iraqi War broke it or not may not be relevant in a Justice court ...

Agreement is the closest thing there is to law in international law. This is the tradition, dating back to the first treaties ending wars in Greece eons past. The Int'l Criminal Court (careful calling it the "ICC" because that's what the Int'l Chamber of Commerce is called) is organized under the UN as I recall. So, the UN Charter would be imminently relevant.

Of course, beginning with post-war resolutions in 1991, the UN, all nations, and IRAQ ITSELF, have AGREED on some very relevant things:
1. Iraq has a WMD program, and has weapons it must disarm in accordance with the post-Gulf War agreements. It will allow inspectors and offer proof of disposal of these weapons.
2. As of 2000-2001, Iraq still has weapons and must disarm or face consequences.
3. As of 2001, Iraq must really disarm or face consequences -- and we mean it and Iraq knows we mean it.

Now, this is where the treaties and UN agreement AGREED UPON BY ALL -- INCLUDING IRAQ -- stood at the time UK/US decided to invade. I think Blair will have plenty of footing to stand on.

I think I was very clear in stating this when Bush/Powell went to the UN to prove the case for war and when they called for a vote approving the war: they DID NOT NEED to do that LEGALLY, as their action was already approved. POLITICALLY, it was the thing to do, but what you legally MAY do and what other countries APPROVE of you doing are two different things sometime. The US/UK governments were VERY good about building the record to justify the war legally, just in case they had to go against other nations.

Trust me, this case will be short-lived. I assure you that the best lawyers in the world, from the US/UK of course, made sure to cover their governments' asses before getting embroiled in the war.

Not all lawyers view it your way, Timber : look here. The article dates back from September 2002. I found this article rather interesting and well documented. I am no lawyer and I possibly miss subtleties - you tell me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

About what I posted above - I actually heard it several times as an argumentation supporting the legality of the war. I missed the legal background to figure out if it was relevant or not. TY for updating me - although the end of your post seems to contradict its beginning, or is it me being fuzzy-brained ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

There is no contradiction. I made 2 points:
1. The UN Charter WILL apply; and
2. Even so, the breadth and depth and sheer number of UN resolutions regarding Iraq made the war perfectly legal under that very Charter anyway.

In short, under the UN Charter making war is illegal except in defense or when approved by the UN. The resolutions surrounding Iraq made war an approved consequence if Iraq did not disarm. Iraq did not disarm -- or if it did, it did it in secret, which is unlikely and would have been STUPID. Therefore, even though the UN did not give a green light on the final, final, final approval for military action, the severity of the language in earlier Resolutions are tantamount to explicit approval. Just because the US/UK were kind enought to ask for approval a 4th or 5th time does not take away the fact it was approved thrice already.

Haven't read your link yet, but I will.

[Edit] I do not argue, nor would I, that preemptive force in self-defense is legal (absent imminence). That's a stupid stupid silly silly small-brained notion. If that were the case, any war any time any where is arguably valid. Bush was wrong to consider it a fair argument -- it shows just how much that idiot warhawk Wolfowitz can bend his ear.

Now, in the face of IMMINENT harm, this has some weight. For instance, Israel in 1967, facing enemies on all sides lining up tanks and threatening to attack. Another hypothetical for instance: if Kuwait had of attacked Iraq as Iraq was stockpiling the border to attack Kuwait. You'll find few of these instances, though.

[ 07-28-2003, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Timber, I have one quetsion : does not the last sentence of the 1441 resolution "(The Security Council)decides to remain seized of the matter" invalidate your point that the Iraqi War was sort of pre-approved ?

Read the article, Moiraine. Pages 22-27 do a really good job setting up the argument I would make. In particular, Resolution 707 stated that Iraq had made flagrant breaches of Res. 687 -- MATERIAL breaches. In that very instance, the legal effect of the breach is to make Res. 687 and others calling the cease-fire INVALID. If the resolutions calling the cease fire are INVALID, then there was no cease fire. Ergo, the Gulf War is still on, absent a cease fire.

It's the UN's own damned fault for using such harsh finger-waving language without the willingness to back up its words. It either (a) should not have said the words or (b) should back them up.

As I said, the article lays out the argument for the war rather well, but then it does a pretty poor job of shooting the argument down. In fact, it seems obvious to me that the author was hard-pressed to give the folks who commissioned the study the legal result they hired.

Moreover, you will note that the article states this particular position arguing FOR war is not PROVEABLE and is AMBIGUOUS. Well, guess what, in an Int'l Crim Court trial, the BURDEN OF PROOF switches -- Greece will have to PROVE Blair DID BREACH Intn'l law, Blair will NOT have to prove he did not. In a situaiton of ambiguity, it is unlikely either side can PROVE BEYOND DOUBT, so the side having the burden of proof will always lose. ;)

Maybe. It's an oddly-phrased sentance. I'd have to read it in context. I don't have R1441 in front of me right now.

To me, it sounds like a translation issue may have garbled the sentance that went into the document. Does "remain seized" mean "retain jurisdiction?" I'd have to investigate. It still coultn't undo 707's material breach language. There are simply SO MANY times the UN clearly stated Iraq breached basically all cease-fire agreements.

To be precise, the resolution specified that there would be 'serious consequences' if Iraq did not comply with resolutions to send in Weapons Inspectors. War was never approved. 'Serious consequences' could have meant instituting an economic blockade that would result in the deaths of a million Iraqi children (for example).

Military action has always been specifically stated in resolutions requiring it - empty and ambiguous phrases like 'serious consequences' has never been an authorisation to engage in military hostilities - hence the reason why the UK/US desparately tried to gain a new resolution authorising military force.

According to Blix, the head of the Weapons Inspection team, Iraq was in compliance with previous resolutions requiring Iraq to submit to and co-operate with the weapons inspectors. His only criticsm was that they should have been pro-active in supplying information - he never said though that they had, in any way, obstructed the work of his team.

This case will fail though - not because the Greek lawyers have a bad case (their case is clearly watertight) but because the judges will be very heavily leaned on to drop the case.

Thanks Timber - I really am not looking for an argument, just trying to understand some of all the lawyers mystery talking. ;)

I would really another lawyer who would not share your views here. Just to be sure I understand all sides. [img]smile.gif[/img]