Articles

This is an application for judicial review of the decision by the Government of the United Kingdom to take military action against Iraq (or to assist the United States in taking such action) on account of Iraq's failure to comply with its disarmament obligations. The following Declaration is sought: "Under present circumstances it would be contrary to international law for the United Kingdom to engage in military action against Iraq, or assist any other State in taking such action, unless it was expressly authorised to do so by the UN Security Council."

The purpose of this hearing has been to consider the question of the legality under international law of any possible military action that might be taken against Iraq in the coming months.

The claimant has filed detailed grounds for judicial review (tabs 1-2), to which attention is invited, whose contents are not repeated here. In essence: (1) This claim for judicial review arises out of the prospect of military action by the United Kingdom against Iraq to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (8.11.02) in the event of non-compliance by Iraq with its terms. (2) The substantive question raised in the proceedings is this: whether Resolution 1441 authorises States to take military action in the event of non-compliance by Iraq with its terms. The consequence, if not, is that international law would require a further mandate from the Security Council, for military action for such non-compliance with the terms of the Resolution.

This is an application by the Proposed Claimant, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament ("CND") for permission under CPR Part 54 to bring a claim for judicial review. The application relates to UN Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq, adopted on 8 November 2002 ("SCR 1441”).

Parliament might have been denied its debate and the cabinet might have been silenced, but there are other means of holding the government to account. If, by 4pm today, his lawyers have failed to agree that he will not attack Iraq without a new UN resolution, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament will take the prime minister to court. For the first time in history, the British government may be forced to defend the legality of its war plans in front of a judge.

The government is trying to alarm you about terrorist attacks just as the weapons inspectors go into Iraq. But you can support legal action that may stop this war, writes Mark Thomas

Lord Justice Simon Brown: This application is nothing if not topical. Resolution 1441 was unanimously adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 2002. It affords Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" (paragraph 2) and recalls that the Council "has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations" (paragraph 13). Just ten days ago, pursuant to paragraph 3, Iraq provided the United Nations’ Monitoring Verification & Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with a twelve thousand page dossier by way of a "declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons". UNMOVIC and IAEA are presently engaged in their inspection activities. All this is well known, front-page and television news on a daily basis. It is a time of great international tension.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has threatened legal action against the government unless it provides a written guarantee that Britain will not invade Iraq without explicit UN backing.

Anti-war campaigners urged the High Court yesterday to declare that it would be contrary to international law for Britain to go to war against Iraq without a fresh United Nations resolution. Rabinder Singh, QC, representing the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, told three senior judges that last month's UN Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorise using force in the event of non-compliance by Iraq.

This briefing paper highlights the main arguments on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons in the light of international humanitarian law examined also with regards to the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion of July 8th 1996 which is, however, mistakenly relied on as the main argument of the illegality of nuclear weapons.