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]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] Lord Goldsmith's advice



For those who haven't seen it (and are interested) Attorney-General Lord
Goldsmith's reasoning for the legality of attacking Iraq is as follows:

****

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2857347.stm

Lord Goldsmith: Iraq has failed to comply

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, spelled out the UK Government's legal
basis for military action in a parliamentary written answer.

He argued that the combined effect of previous UN resolutions on Iraq dating
back to the 1990 invasion of Kuwait allowed "the use of force for the
express purpose of restoring international peace and security".

Below is the full text of his statement.

All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter
which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring
international peace and security:

1. In resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to
eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

2. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation
Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to
eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international
peace and security in the area.

Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force
under resolution 678.

3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force
under resolution 678.

4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and
remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully
complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to
comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious
consequences" if it did not.

6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed
at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of
resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at
the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so
continues today.

9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of
the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been
intended.

Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by
the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision
to authorise force.

I have lodged a copy of this answer, together with resolutions 678, 687 and
1441 in the Library of both Houses.

****

Comments from legal eagles please.

Andrew Goreing


_______________________________________________
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 casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]