gnore these views.
In the third place, resolution 1441 does not do what Lord Goldsmith says it
does. It does not authorise the use of force. The term "serious
consequences" is not UN code for enforcement action. Once again, the
majority of members of the security council rejected automaticity. Even US
Ambassador John Negroponte said that the resolution "contained no 'hidden
triggers' and no 'automaticity' with the use of force".
Lord Goldsmith's argument that if 1441 had provided that a further
resolution was required to authorise the use of force it would have said so
is, to say the least, disingenuous.
Even on the attorney-general's own arguments force against Iraq could be
justified only to enforce Iraq's disarmament obligations. It provides no
warrant for regime change, that is, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Lord Goldsmith's statement shows a talented lawyer arguing a weak case. The
prohibition of the use of force is a foundational principle of international
law. There are only two exceptions to the rule: the use of force in
self-defence and as expressly authorised by the security council acting
under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. These exceptions must be read
restrictively. Neither applies to the present situation. Any use of force
against Iraq without a second resolution expressly authorising the use of
force would be illegal.
· Matthew Happold is a lecturer in law at the University of Nottingham
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
From: "Michael Pollak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 12:47 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:35843] Re: Article on Illegality of Iraq war
>
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, k hanly quoted a CESR report stating:
>
> > "It is the height of hypocrisy for the U.S. and U.K. to base war on
> > Resolution 1441 when they are fully aware that France, Russia and China
> > approved that resolution on explicit written condition that it could not
be
> > used by individual states to justify military action."
>
> I've never heard before that it was explicitly written. That certainly
> would blow a hole through the US and UK legal opinions. Is there any copy
> of this writing available somewhere? Or at least a report of France or
> Russia citing this fact publicly?
>
> Michael
>
