Iraq air strikes: Our politicians must remember the lessons from the disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq

It cannot be the right course of action for Parliament to approve a strategy that involves an unlawful use of force

Kate Hudson,Phil Shiner
Thursday 25 September 2014 16:51
Comments
The aftermath of an airstrike on the Al Chaar neighbourhood in Aleppo in July. Air campaigns not supported by ground forces can damage the other side but may not win wars on their own
The aftermath of an airstrike on the Al Chaar neighbourhood in Aleppo in July. Air campaigns not supported by ground forces can damage the other side but may not win wars on their own

Tomorrow David Cameron will ask the House of Commons to vote on whether or not the UK should be part of the Coalition against Isis. The Coalition has a strategy of air strikes on both Iraq and Syria, with a current US tally of at least 200 air strikes in recent weeks. The Commons at this stage will be asked to vote on attacks on Iraq only.

Anyone with an ounce of humanity and decency cannot help but be repulsed by the ghastly and much publicised acts of Isis including the beheading of three Western journalists. But it is vitally important in such times of heightened emotional response to stand back and take stock. It cannot be the right course of action for Parliament to approve a strategy that involves an unlawful use of force. If air strikes and other military action on the ground are unlawful, how can these actions be justified under other philosophical or faith principles?

International law, which the UK must follow as a matter of its own policy, could not be clearer. There are two possible lawful uses of force under the UN Charter. The first is the state’s inherent right to use force in self-defence under Article 51 – clearly not in play here. The second is when the UN Security Council authorises force under Chapter VII of the Charter, usually using the well-understood authorisation to a Coalition of ready and willing states to use “all necessary measures” to achieve the Security Council’s stated objectives. An example of such lawful use of force was Security Council Resolution 678 authorising the Coalition to remove Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait in November 1990. Although Tony Blair has tried to introduce a third route into legality, namely humanitarian intervention, starting with his famous Chicago speech in April 1999, this doctrine remains highly controversial and is not part of international law. In any event it is difficult to see how airstrikes from thousands of feet, with the obvious risk of killing and wounding innocent civilians, can rationally be said to be an action of humanitarian intervention.

Ed Miliband was legally absolutely correct when he said on Tuesday that he would not support British military action against Isis in Syria unless there is a Security Council Resolution authorising it. The same reasoning, of course, applies to air strikes and military action in Iraq. Current commentary seems to assume that an Iraqi invitation to use force makes such attacks legal. But that is not the case. The consent, invitation or acquiescence of the present Iraqi government – whilst interesting for the purposes of considering whether there is European Convention on Human Rights jurisdiction if UK Special Forces might have their “boots on the ground” – is utterly irrelevant to the issue of legality of the use of force by air strikes, or otherwise, in Iraq.

The UN Security Council meeting last night did not provide Chapter VII authorisation. If David Cameron wants air strikes and other military action to be lawful they must have such an authorisation. The UN Security Council adopted a binding resolution compelling states to prevent their nationals joining jihadists in Iraq and Syria but it did not authorise military attacks. Discarding the rule of international law in March 2003 in the illegal US and UK-led invasion of Iraq proved to be utterly disastrous and ironically helped create the present leader of Isis, Al Baghdadi, who was unlawfully interned for four years by the US under an unlawful regime created by US and UK lawyers. Parliament learnt from that monumental error when it refused to back Cameron’s planned military action against the Syrian regime a year ago. It should stand firm again tomorrow in its support for the rule of law.

Kate Hudson, is general secretary of CND. Phil Shiner is the principal solicitor at Public Interest Lawyers

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new 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 in