Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Goldsmith says combined effect of three UN resolutions gives authority for force

Ben Russell,Political Correspondent
Tuesday 18 March 2003 01:00 GMT
Comments

War with Iraq is justified under international law without a second United Nations resolution, the Attorney General said yesterday.

Lord Goldsmith broke with convention to publish his legal opinion declaring that UN Security Council resolutions going back more than a decade provided the legal authority for military action. He said: "Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All these resolutions were adopted under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security."

The parliamentary written answer ended suggestions that Lord Goldsmith, the Government's chief legal adviser, had told Tony Blair war would be illegal without a second UN resolution. His statement, made before a House of Lords debate on the legality of war, was immediately contested by anti-war peers and MPs, who insisted that war required an explicit authorisation from the UN Security Council.

Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, added his voice to the debate, saying in New York: "If the action is to take place without the support of the Council, its legitimacy will be questioned and the support for it will be diminished."

Lord Goodhart, a barrister and Liberal Democrat frontbencher, said: "I see nothing in any of these resolutions which gives authority to two members of the Security Council to decide for themselves whether the conditions for the use of armed force are satisfied."

Lord Goldsmith's one-page legal opinion stated that resolution 1441 did not require the Council to make a fresh resolution authorising military action. He said the authority for war stemmed from UN Security Council resolution 678, the resolution that first authorised force to expel Iraq from Kuwait in 1990. The Attorney General said resolution 1441 made clear Iraq was in material breach of its ceasefire and in effect "revived" the legal authority for war originally confirmed in 1990. He said: "The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq 'a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations' and warned Iraq of the 'serious consequences' if it did not ... It is plain that Iraq has failed to comply and therefore Iraq was, at the time of resolution 1441, and continues to be, in material breach."

PATH TO WAR

Resolution 678

The resolution adopted on 29 November 1990 authorised the 1991 Gulf War, which repelled the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. The UN Security Council set a 15 January deadline for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, after Iraqi troops invaded the country in August 1990. It warned that if the ultimatum was ignored, "all necessary means" were authorised for member states to "restore international peace and security in the area". Baghdad rejected the ultimatum and Operation Desert Storm was launched on 17 January 1991.

Resolution 687

The resolution adopted on 3 April 1991 was the ceasefire resolution that laid down the terms for the lifting of UN sanctions in force since the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. The resolution notably set up the UN inspectors regime and ordered Iraq to accept the internationally supervised elimination of all its weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and long-range missiles with a range of more than 150km (93 miles) and the dismantling of its clandestine nuclear programme.

Resolution 1441

The resolution adopted on 8 November 2002 declared that Iraq was already in "material breach" of its ceasefire obligations but gave Saddam Hussein a "final opportunity" to comply with the UN disarmament demands. It authorised the return of UN weapons inspectors to complete the disarmament process, but warned that any false statements or omissions by President Saddam would constitute a further material breach. The resolution concluded that Iraq would incur "serious consequences" for continuing to violate its obligations.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in