Was the war in Iraq legal in the eyes of international law ?

Question

some great answers there & just as i thought . So how has Bush & Blair avoided prosecution ?

Answer 1

Apparently not a legal war.

-------------

British Attorney General's Advice to Blair

on Legality of Iraq War

March 7, 2003

SECRET

PRIME MINISTER

IRAQ: RESOLUTION 1441

1. You have asked me for advice on the legality of military action against Iraq without a further resolution of the Security Council. This is, of course, a matter we have discussed before.

Since then, I have had the benefit of discussions with the Foreign Secretary and Sir Jeremy Greenstock (the then British ambassador to the UN), who have given me valuable background information on the negotiating history of resolution 1441. In addition, I have also had the opportunity to hear the views of the US Administration from their perspective as co-sponsors of the resolution.

This note considers the issues in detail in order that you are in a position to understand the legal reasoning. My conclusions are summarised at paragraphs 26 to 31 below.

-----------

CLIP

--------

Possible consequences of acting without a second resolution

32. In assessing the risks of acting on the basis of a reasonably arguable case, you will wish to take account of the ways in which the matter might be brought before a court. There are a number of possibilities. First, the General Assembly could request an advisory opinion on the legality of the military action from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). A request for such an opinion could be made at the request of a simple majority of the States within the GA, so the UK and US could not block such action.

Second, given that the United Kingdom has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, it is possible that another State which has also accepted the Court's jurisdiction might seek to bring a case against us. This, however, seems a less likely option since Iraq itself could not bring a case and it is not easy to see on what basis any other State could establish that it had a dispute with the UK. But we cannot absolutely rule out that some State strongly opposed to military action might try to bring such a case. If it did, an application for interim measures to stop the campaign could be brought quite quickly (as it was in the case of Kosovo). 33. The International Criminal Court at present has no jurisdiction over the crime of aggression and could therefore not entertain a case concerning the lawfulness of any military action. The ICC will however have jurisdiction to examine whether any military campaign has been conducted in accordance with international humanitarian law.

Given the controversy surrounding the legal basis for action, it is likely that the Court will scrutinise any allegations of war crimes by UK forces very closely. The Government has already been put on notice by CND that they intend to report to the ICC Prosecutor any incidents which their lawyers assess to have contravened the Geneva Conventions. The ICC would only be able to exercise jurisdiction over UK personnel if it considered that the UK prosecuting authorities were unable or unwilling to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects themselves.

34. It is also possible that CND may try to bring further action to stop military action in the domestic courts, but I am confident that the courts would decline jurisdiction as they did in the case brought by CND last November. Two further, though probably more remote possibilities, are an attempted prosecution for murder on the grounds that the military action is unlawful and an attempted prosecution for the crime of aggression.

Aggression is a crime under customary international law which automatically forms part of domestic law. It might therefore be argued that international aggression is a crime recognised by the common law which can be prosecuted in the UK courts.

35. In short, there are a number of ways in which the opponents of military action might seek to bring a legal case, internationally or domestically, against the UK, members of the Government or UK military personnel. Some of these seem fairly remote possibilities, but given the strength of opposition to military action against Iraq, it would not be surprising if some attempts were made to get a case of some sort off the ground. We cannot be certain that they would not succeed. The GA route may be the most likely, but you are in a better position than me to judge whether there are likely to be enough States in the GA who would be willing to vote for such a course of action in present circumstances.

Proportionality

36. Finally, I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis, but also on the question of proportionality. Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution):

must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions;

be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and

must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations.

That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.

(signed) ATTORNEY GENERAL 7 March 2003

Answer 2

Probably not, it was based on the assumtion of WMD, unproven at the time, and now totally discredited. I think it was just 'Dubya' trying to impress dad. Pity so many have died, both Bush and B liar should be punished.

Answer 3

No

Answer 4

until there is a war crimes trial in the hague the clears bush and blair or convicts them we will never know for sure.

Answer 5

No, the unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq was illegal because it did not, and does not, have the backing of the United Nations. But gung-ho America always does what it likes, because it can (or could). Let's hope new US and UK governments (under Obama and Cameron) will launch prosecutions of all the guilty men, because they sure as h**l deserve to be brought to justice.

Edit: beautifully put, old know all. You deserve the 10 points and to head the tribunal when it is convened :D

Answer 6

There has been no tribunal to decide on the legality of the war.  There is certainly a case to answer.  The USA and UK invaded Iraq without a UN mandate.  This would only have been legal if Iraq posed an immediate threat to both countries and invasion was the only method of containing the threat.  The evidence that Iraq did present a threat has been shown to be spurious.

The governments of the UK and USA subsequently claimed that their efforts were justified because they had brought about regime change.  However evil Saddam might have been, toppling his regime without a UN mandate was illegal.

The USA is effectively immune to International Law.  They have a veto on any UN tribunal being set up.  They will not release their citizens to an international tribunal.  Any attempt to use force to get the USA to comply can simply be vetoed or ignored.  Invading the USA would simply cause them to destroy the world - a little faster than they are currently doing it.

The UK, on the other hand, does recognise its duties in International Law.  Tony Blair currently has a job that gives him diplomatic immunity to prosecution.  A change of government and the end of his current job could see him in the dock.