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] Legal basis for war

[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]

I'm sending the below to the UK media. Please does anyone have any
comments to make or newsroom email addresses to offer?

> When interviewing politicians and others who claim that war on Iraq is
> legal under international law, please bear in mind the following.
> I am sure you are aware that :
> - The only legal basis for war is self-defence or under explicit UN
> authorisation.
> - Britain and America assured that Resolution 1441 was *not* a trigger
> for war, and the Resolution was accepted on that understanding.
> However, you may not be aware that :
> - UN Resolution 1441 does *not* itself threaten "serious consequences"
> - it merely *recalls* "... that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq
> that it will face serious consequences ..." (para. 13).
> - "Serious consequences" is not, and never has been, UNSC language for
> military force. The terms traditionally used in the UN to mean
> military force is "by all means necessary" or "by all means
> available", or a variation on this. Unless this term is used there
> clearly is no UN authorisation for military force to be used against
> Iraq. The term "serious consequences" is used to mean something less
> than military force, such as trade sanctions.
> - Any "serious consequences" or other actions threatened under a UN
> resolution are to be decided by the UNSC and not by any state or
> states, whether unilaterally or as a coalition. Were any UN resolution
> threatening "serious consequences" meant to allow them to be
> determined outside of the UN then any state hostile to that threatened
> would be free to launch an immediate attack with impunity, providing a
> trigger for numerous global conflicts.
> - The routine bombing of Iraq since 1998, the violations of its
> airspace by hostile military aircraft, the threat of military action
> against Iraq, and the massing of troops and weapons on Iraq's borders
> by Britain and America are acts of war as defined under international
> law. That is, Britain and America are already in breach of
> international law and their leaders could be charged with war crimes
> immediately.
> Allen Hardy

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]