Anti-War Actions

It was the opinion of the majority of the lawyers concerned with International Law, that the War on Iraq was illegal. This was highlighted in a letter to The Guardian on March 7^th 2003, which stated,

"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 be lawfully 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 grounds 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 without 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 Phillipe Sands, Ralph Wilde. University College London.

Prof Pierre Marie-Dupuy. University of Paris

On BBC Radio 4, on December 21^st 2002, a similar argument was put forward by Professor Nick Grief, of Bournemouth University, in a debate with fellow International Law experts, when he stated,

"The consequences of a material breach of Iraq’s disarmament obligations are for the UN Security Council alone to determine by means of a further resolution. In the absence of express authorization by the Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter or of circumstances justifying recourse to Article 51, it would be contrary to international law for the UK to engage in military action against Iraq."

Judging the debate between Prof Nick Grief and Prof Anthony Aust, Professor Vaughan Lowe (Barrister Practicing at Essex Court Chambers in London, and a Chichele Professor of Public International Law) gave his verdict when he stated,

"Under present circumstances it would be contrary to international law for the United Kingdom to engage in military action against Iraq, or assist any other State in taking such action, unless it was expressly authorized to do so by the UN Security Council."

In a legal opinion from two leading international lawyers from Matrix, London the UK Government was warned that the use of force against Iraq, without a Security Council authorization, will be a clear violation of international law and that the Draft Resolution sponsored by the UK, US and Spain does not authorize force.

The opinion obtained from Rabinder Singh QC and Charlotte Kilroy, on behalf of CND, and other leading NGOs, advised:

   The Draft Resolution would not authorize the US and the UK to use force against Iraq if it were adopted.
   In the present circumstances as known to us, if there is no further resolution clearly authorizing force, the US and the UK would be acting in violation of international law if they were to attack Iraq.

This opinion was used as part of an international campaign of lawyers and NGOs to make the US and UK Governments accountable, in law, for any unlawful actions. Lawyers in the US, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and other countries will be using this opinion to put pressure on their governments to act in accordance with the law.

Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers explained, "This opinion leaves no room for doubt. Without a specific Security Council authorization war will be illegal. This draft does not give that authorization."

To see a copy of the full advice given by Matrix Layers to CND, see http://www.matrix.co.uk and http://www.cnduk.org

Latest press releases about Anti-war

Printer friendly version

Home | Top