Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Let's get over the non-issues, please. I'm getting dizzy.
|
Talking to lawyers often has that effect on me!
A war against Iraq in present circumstances would be contrary to international law. The starting point is the principle that the use of force by one state against another is unlawful. This is reflected in Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter. The principle protects the weak and the powerful, dictatorships and democracies. The intervention in Kosovo was arguably lawful, but that was an emergency in which hundreds of thousands of people were being subjected to “ethnic cleansing”.
The UN Charter recognises two exceptions to that prohibition. The first is self-defence. But Iraq has not attacked the UK. The other exception is authorisation by the Security Council. The British Government appears to take the view that Resolution 1441 provides that authorisation. In my view it does not. It set out a number of steps that Iraq was required to take, including allowing the inspectors back in. It then required the inspectors to report to the council. Resolution 1441 clearly envisaged that there would have to be a further decision by the council before force could be used. The phrase commonly used to authorise force is “all necessary means”. That phrase was used in Resolution 678 to authorise the first Gulf War. If there were any doubt, it was made clear from what ambassadors to the UN said at the time of Resolution 1441, that it contained “no ‘hidden triggers’” (John Negroponte for the US) and that there was “no ‘automaticity’” in it (Sir Jeremy Greenstock for the UK).
Why was the phrase "all necessary means" ( a euphemism for armed force) removed from the draft of 1441?