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]
[ 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? Thanks Allen > 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 > www.stopthewar.co.uk _______________________________________________ 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 email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk