Lawyers stress the need for UN approval

Lawyers from Cherie Booth's chambers successfully argued yesterday that Britain would break international law if it used armed force against Iraq.

Rabinder Singh QC and Alison MacDonald, from the Prime Minister's wife's Matrix chambers, said an attack on Iraq could not be justified under international law unless it attacked Britain or one of its allies.

They argued that force would have to be authorised by the United Nations Security Council "in clear terms" for Britain to be entitled to take part in any attackunder international law.

The barristers were taking part in a mock hearing held at Gray's Inn, London, chaired by Professor Colin Warbrick, of Durham University.

Professor Warbrick, who was acting as judge, came down on their side after a day-long hearing yesterday.

Phil Shiner, of the Public Interest Lawyers organisation, which arranged the event, claimed the ruling gave the Government "no crumbs of comfort". He added: "The significance of this is that the British Government is threatening to act outside international law but the judiciary will not look at issues to do with defence of the realm.

"We have subjected the issue to the same degree of legal scrutiny as a judicial review and the judge has found it not lawful. If action is unlawful then the public will find it morally and politically unacceptable."

Mr Shiner said Professor Warbrick had decided that action against Iraq would be unlawful without a new UN Security Council resolution authorising force.

Professor Warbrick said existing UN resolutions did not authorise force and the pre-emptive doctrine proposed by the United States was prohibited under international law.

Another of Ms Booth's colleagues from Matrix Chambers, Julian Knowles, presented the case that such an attack would be legal.