|
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.
__________________
 
|