Did Resolution 1441 and 1483 authorize and legalize the war? These lawyers think not!
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20030319.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020108.html
http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh92.htm
http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh99a1.htm
http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh99.htm
[Q]'There was no threat. There was no resolution'
Professor Philippe Sands QC Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals, University College London The war was contrary to international law and it was contrary to international law whether or not they find weapons of mass destruction.
The illegality was based on the absence of a Security Council resolution authorising the use of force. I think that is the view of almost every independent commentator. The claim by the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith - that the war was legal because Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with UN resolutions dating back to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait - has received almost no support outside the UK or the United States from independent academic commentators.
Professor Robert Black QC Professor of Scots law, Edinburgh University, and architect of the Lockerbie trial in The Hague It's simple and straightforward.
There are only two legal justifications for attacking another country: self-defence, or if the Security Council authorises you to do so. It is perfectly plain that none of the Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq authorised armed intervention. It's possible to cobble together what looks like a legal argument, but the real test of any legal argument is whether a court would accept that argument. I challenged the Attorney General to say what he thought the odds were of the International Court of Justice in The Hague accepting his argument. In my view, the odds against were greater than 10 to 1.
Professor Sean Murphy Associate professor of law at George Washington University, Washington DC I think there's a real question to be raised about whether the US, UK and Australian coalition properly intervened in Iraq without Security Council authorisation, and I think there are very sound reasons for saying that the intervention was not permitted.
The US-UK legal justification, which is based on Security Council resolutions dating back to 1990-91, isn't credible. When you look closely at the resolutions and the practice of the Security Council, it's clear that the majority of members of the Security Council believed that further authorisation was needed in March 2003 than, in fact, existed.
Professor James Crawford Whewell Professor of International Law, Jesus College, Cambridge On the information available, none of the exceptions that permit the use of force applied.
There was no UN Security Council authorisation, and no imminent humanitarian catastrophe, and no imminent threat of the use of force by Iraq. I think it was unlawful in the beginning, and they haven't found anything since to make one change one's mind.
The earlier Security Council resolutions were related to the occupation of Kuwait, and that situation has completely changed. It's very contrived to treat Resolution 1441 as if it authorises the use of force.
Professor Mary Kaldor Professor of global governance, London School of Economics
Going back to the 1991 UN resolutions is the real weakness of their argument. It is an awfully long time ago, and it's as though this isn't a new war - as if it is the same war we fought in 1991. I think that it is an incredibly weak legal case. I don't think there's any way we can argue that the Iraq intervention was legitimate, and it's illegitimate for two reasons. There was no real case that the inspectors weren't dealing with the weapons of mass destruction. And, we're now seeing what a lot of people warned we would see: that this will be bad for [curbing] terrorism rather than good. [/Q]
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0525warillegal.htm
http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh107.htm
Probably the best article I have read on how to manipulate the Security Council through vague resolutions is here:
http://www.asil.org/ajil/lobel.htm