Britain’s former top lawyer admitted today that he “changed his mind” about the legality of the 2003 Iraq war.
by Hermione Gee
As late as March 7th, 2003, former attorney general Peter Goldsmith cautioned then British prime minister Tony Blair that, without a second United Nations resolution, the legality of the war was questionable. But by March 13th, two days after a meeting with Blair and his team, Lord Goldsmith had decided this second resolution was no longer necessary.
Goldsmith was giving evidence at the British Iraq War inquiry, headed by Sir John Chilcot. The public inquiry, which began hearings in July last year, is in the process of reviewing the legal basis for the war.
Earlier this month, a Dutch commission of inquiry into the war found that the 2003 invasion violated international law. The commission also slammed Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, saying he had allowed Britain to “help” establish a legal pretext for the Netherlands’ support of the war against former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
The inquiry, known as the Davids Commission after its chairman, Dutch Supreme Court Justice Willibrord Davids, issued its final report on January 12th and concluded that “the decision to support the [Anglo-American] invasion of Iraq was based mainly on international political considerations” and “had no sound mandate in international law.”
“The [UN] Security Council resolutions on Iraq during the 1990s did not constitute a mandate for the intervention in 2003,” the report found. Nor did the 2002 UN resolution 1441 authorize the war: “Despite the existence of certain ambiguities, the wording of resolution 1441 cannot reasonably be interpreted (as the government did) as authorizing individual member states to use military force [against Iraq].”
UN resolution 1441 was passed by the Security Council in November 2002, and offered Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to comply with UN weapons inspectors. Failure to do so would result in “serious consequences”, the resolution stated.
Balkenende hit back at the report, saying, “the Netherlands, like many other countries, believed that the existing UN resolutions 678 through 1441 provided a legal basis for intervention [in Iraq]. A new resolution would have been preferable, but from a legal point of view not strictly necessary.”
In London, meanwhile, the Chilcot inquiry has been hearing from senior government lawyers this week regarding the same argument as put forward by Lord Goldsmith.
Former legal advisor to the British Foreign Office, Sir Michael Wood, said he disagreed with Goldsmith and had advised Jack Straw, who was foreign secretary at the time of the invasion, that use of force was not authorized. Sir Michael told the inquiry that Straw “took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague.” Wood’s version of events appears to contradict Straw’s own testimony to the inquiry last week, where he said that he only supported the war “very reluctantly.”
The Chilcot inquiry is not expected to publish its findings before 2011. According to Philippe Sands, professor of law at the University of London, the British inquiry is “bound to be influenced” by the Davids report. “It is the first independent assessment by anybody, anywhere in the world, of the legality of the war, and so it carries a particular weight,” he said. “It’s very hard to see how the British inquiry could reach a different conclusion,” Sands added, “at least on the issue of legality…because of the identity of its authors.” Several members of the Davids commission are lawyers, unlike the Chilcot inquiry, none of whose five members are legal professionals.
Tony Blair is due to appear before the commission on Friday.
Referring to calls for Blair to be prosecuted should the inquiry find that he violated international law, Sands said “it’s a bit of a stretch, but the possibility cannot be excluded. At the very least Mr Blair may wish to exercise some care in making international travel arrangements.”
Download the print version of the International Justice Tribune 98 (PDF file)
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
