Iraq War: Articles

In this paper, first presented at the World Tribunal on Iraq (23-27 June 2005), Phil Shiner addresses three issues:

1. Whether the Iraq war was a “crime of aggression” (which is the “worst of crimes”);
2. Whether the way in which the war was conducted involved the commission of “war crimes” and;
3. Whether the subsequent occupation of Iraq involved, and continues to involve, the commission of “war crimes”, “crimes against humanity” and other illegal acts.

We say that British troops acted, and were ordered to act, beyond the bounds of military necessity. British soldiers acted unlawfully by detaining and mistreating Iraqi civilians, and by targeting cluster munitions on urban areas.

Last April, a group of eight law professors wrote to Britain's Attorney General and the Prosecutor of the newly created International Criminal Court in The Hague. In a 30-page document, the members of the Peacerights group explained why they thought an investigation should be opened into the possible commission of war crimes by Britain and the United States in Iraq

The decision of any government to go to war is a critically important one, and not surprisingly the part played by the UK in the recent war in Iraq, has raised profound concerns as to its basis in morality, common sense and legality.

An opinion given to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) : Rabinder Singh QC and Charlotte Kilroy

Opinion of Rabinder Singh QC & Charlotte Kilroy on the legality of the use of force against Iraq

"There is no explicit authority of the Council to the UK to use force for the implementation of Council resolutions [...] The conclusion against authorisation seems to me to fit best the structure of authority in the UN and the pattern of language of the resolutions."

The LSIG will invite the inquiry to conclude:

1. That an attack on Iraq would not be unlawful under international law if the evidence in the possession of the relevant governments, when scrutinised by an appropriate international body or tribunal, were to demonstrate the necessity of destroying Iraq’s capability to develop or deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in order to preserve international peace and security.
2. The proper interpretation of post-Gulf War Resolutions allows force to be used a further specific Resolution.

This inquiry concerns the legality of the use of force by the United Kingdom against Iraq. Peacerights will invite the Inquiry to reach the following conclusion:

"The Inquiry concludes that it would be unlawful for the United Kingdom to launch or take part in a military attack on Iraq under present circumstances without the express authorisation of a United Nations resolution."