The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Does any-one know of any legal opinion or analysis of the pretty misleading claims made that a war against Iraq, even without authorisation from a further UNSC resolution, is legal on the grounds that it is enforcing the term of ceasefire as laid out in UNSC resolution 687 of April 1991? In reading that resolution, it does not appear to authorise the use of force if the terms are deemed to be not adhered to by Iraq, and in any case, nor does any resolution relating to Iraq allow one member state of the UNSC to arrogate itself the right to enforce its own interpretation of a resolution, and resort ot the use of force unilaterally as a result, without agreement from the UNSC. Any help with this would be really appreciated, thanks Peter Kiernan _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk