Larissa
7th March 2003, 11:24
From today's Guardian:
No case for Iraq attack say lawyers
Michael White and Patrick Wintour
Friday March 7, 2003
The Guardian
Tony Blair last night faced fresh pressure to abandon the threat of war against Iraq when 16 eminent academic lawyers warned him that the White House doctrine of "pre-emptive self-defence" has no justification under international law.
Not only do all the UN security council's existing resolutions on Iraq - including 1441 passed unanimously in November to enforce disarmament on
Saddam Hussein - fail to provide such authority, there are currently no grounds for passing a new one to give the "clearly expressed assent" to a war that Mr Blair still seeks, the lawyers declare.
In a letter sent to Downing Street and published in today's Guardian, the signatories - specialists who include James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law at Cambridge, and Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor at Oxford - also take a sideswipe at the prime minister for saying that he and President Bush would ignore an "unreasonable veto" in the security council.
Noting that Britain itself has exercised the veto 32 times since the UN was founded in 1945, the 16 say "the prime minister's assertion that in certain circumstances a veto becomes 'unreasonable' and may be disregarded has no basis in international law" either.
Not content with telling Mr Blair that a second resolution is legally necessary as well as politically vital if Downing Street is to stem growing dissent among Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, the lawyers, mostly British-based but of many nationalities, add a further sting.
"A decision to undertake military action in Iraq without proper security council authorisation will seriously undermine the international rule of law," they say. "Of course, even with that authorisation, serious questions would remain. A lawful war is not necessarily a just, prudent or humanitarian war." That amounts to a blanket thumbs-down.
The letter's signatories include six leading international lawyers from Oxford, three from Cambridge and three from the London School of Economics. Also among them are Professor Phillipe Sands, a member of Cherie Blair QC's Matrix chambers who teaches at University College
London, and Professor Pierre-Marie Dupuy of the Sorbonne.
...
Here is the text of the letter:
We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq. The UN charter outlaws the
use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. There are currently no grounds for a claim to use such force in self-defence. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law. Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances.
Before military action can lawfully be undertaken against Iraq, the security council must have indicated its clearly expressed assent. It has not yet done so. A vetoed resolution could provide no such assent. The prime minister's assertion that in certain circumstances a veto becomes "unreasonable" and may be disregarded has no basis in international law. The UK has used its security council veto on 32 occasions since 1945. Any attempt to disregard these votes on the ground that they were "unreasonable" would have been deplored as an unacceptable infringement of the UK's right to exercise a veto under UN charter article 27.
A decision to undertake military action in Iraq without proper security council authorisation will seriously undermine the international rule of law. Of course, even with that authorisation, serious questions would
remain. A lawful war is not necessarily a just, prudent or humanitarian war.
Prof Ulf Bernitz, Dr Nicolas Espejo-Yaksic, Agnes Hurwitz, Prof Vaughan Lowe, Dr Ben Saul, Dr Katja Ziegler
University of Oxford Prof James Crawford, Dr Susan Marks, Dr Roger O'Keefe University of Cambridge
Prof Christine Chinkin, Dr Gerry Simpson, Deborah Cass
London School of Economics, Dr Matthew Craven School of Oriental and African Studies, Prof Philippe Sands, Ralph Wilde University College London, Prof Pierre-Marie Dupuy University of Paris.
No case for Iraq attack say lawyers
Michael White and Patrick Wintour
Friday March 7, 2003
The Guardian
Tony Blair last night faced fresh pressure to abandon the threat of war against Iraq when 16 eminent academic lawyers warned him that the White House doctrine of "pre-emptive self-defence" has no justification under international law.
Not only do all the UN security council's existing resolutions on Iraq - including 1441 passed unanimously in November to enforce disarmament on
Saddam Hussein - fail to provide such authority, there are currently no grounds for passing a new one to give the "clearly expressed assent" to a war that Mr Blair still seeks, the lawyers declare.
In a letter sent to Downing Street and published in today's Guardian, the signatories - specialists who include James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law at Cambridge, and Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor at Oxford - also take a sideswipe at the prime minister for saying that he and President Bush would ignore an "unreasonable veto" in the security council.
Noting that Britain itself has exercised the veto 32 times since the UN was founded in 1945, the 16 say "the prime minister's assertion that in certain circumstances a veto becomes 'unreasonable' and may be disregarded has no basis in international law" either.
Not content with telling Mr Blair that a second resolution is legally necessary as well as politically vital if Downing Street is to stem growing dissent among Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, the lawyers, mostly British-based but of many nationalities, add a further sting.
"A decision to undertake military action in Iraq without proper security council authorisation will seriously undermine the international rule of law," they say. "Of course, even with that authorisation, serious questions would remain. A lawful war is not necessarily a just, prudent or humanitarian war." That amounts to a blanket thumbs-down.
The letter's signatories include six leading international lawyers from Oxford, three from Cambridge and three from the London School of Economics. Also among them are Professor Phillipe Sands, a member of Cherie Blair QC's Matrix chambers who teaches at University College
London, and Professor Pierre-Marie Dupuy of the Sorbonne.
...
Here is the text of the letter:
We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq. The UN charter outlaws the
use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. There are currently no grounds for a claim to use such force in self-defence. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law. Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances.
Before military action can lawfully be undertaken against Iraq, the security council must have indicated its clearly expressed assent. It has not yet done so. A vetoed resolution could provide no such assent. The prime minister's assertion that in certain circumstances a veto becomes "unreasonable" and may be disregarded has no basis in international law. The UK has used its security council veto on 32 occasions since 1945. Any attempt to disregard these votes on the ground that they were "unreasonable" would have been deplored as an unacceptable infringement of the UK's right to exercise a veto under UN charter article 27.
A decision to undertake military action in Iraq without proper security council authorisation will seriously undermine the international rule of law. Of course, even with that authorisation, serious questions would
remain. A lawful war is not necessarily a just, prudent or humanitarian war.
Prof Ulf Bernitz, Dr Nicolas Espejo-Yaksic, Agnes Hurwitz, Prof Vaughan Lowe, Dr Ben Saul, Dr Katja Ziegler
University of Oxford Prof James Crawford, Dr Susan Marks, Dr Roger O'Keefe University of Cambridge
Prof Christine Chinkin, Dr Gerry Simpson, Deborah Cass
London School of Economics, Dr Matthew Craven School of Oriental and African Studies, Prof Philippe Sands, Ralph Wilde University College London, Prof Pierre-Marie Dupuy University of Paris.