By Josh Broadhurst and Edited by Tom Guyton-Day
Credit: Kyle Glenn
British law
The Iraq War. A source of much contention across British society, and now a defining moment in the Premiership of Tony Blair. Many brandish words such as war criminal, murderer, or make wild claims such as: the former PM and his collaborators needing to face trial in The Hague. Others genuinely look at the decision to go to war on its merits too. However, I wish to push back on the wild claims of illegality, and despite strong opinions, explain why the Iraq War was legal both in British law and international law.
Power over the Armed Forces, their ability to act, and basic acts of war are all powers granted to the Sovereign under the Royal Prerogative. In contemporary Britain these powers are exercised by the Prime Minister and Cabinet, making the Prime Minister de facto Commander in Chief, able to declare war, and use the armed forces at will. Despite a more modern convention of Parliament approving action via a motion, something which it did do so in the case of the Iraq War, these powers didn't change, and haven't changed since.
Credit: Matt Briney
Theresa May in 2018 displayed perfectly how Prerogative Powers over war work when she approved British bombing raids on Syria's chemical weapons capabilities, without the approval of Parliament. So in the case of the Iraq War you have a Prime Minister exercising the Royal Prerogative, as is his right. You then add to that Parliamentary approval of the war, and you have a solid case of actual legality, as well as a democratic mandate for the war. It's clear Tony Blair acted consistently with British law, following it to the letter, and actually provided a democratic mandate to bolster his position. Hence under British law, the Iraq War was legal.
International law
We now turn to International law, something far harder to codify due to its reliance on things like UN resolutions, and international consensus. When it comes to the Iraq War it's very important to look at the timeline to war in 2003 from the Gulf War of 1990-91, more specifically the UN Security Council Resolutions passed, and not complied with by Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
Credit: Mat Reding
During the Gulf War a multitude of UNSC Resolutions (UNSCRs) were passed regarding Iraq, the first being UNSCR 660 in 1990 calling on Iraq to leave Kuwait following its invasion. This may seem irrelevant in terms of content, however, its existence is extremely significant. Following UNSCR 660 more resolutions were passed including 661 reaffirming 660, as well as 687 in 1991 which called on Iraq to respect the border with Kuwait agreed in 1963 following the Gulf War, destroy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and allow inspectors into Iraq unhindered, as well as accept responsibility for all damage caused to Kuwait. This now creates a link between the Iraqi-Kuwait conflict, the subject of resolution 660, and WMDs due to Iraqi disarmament and inspections on WMDs by the UN effectively became part of the conditions imposed on Iraq in the agreed peace following the Gulf War, making 687, and other WMD resolutions relevant to 660.
So what links the legality of going to war with Iraq to these resolutions? That would be three very important UNSCRs: 678, 686, and 1441.
UNSCR 678 explicitly stated that it: "authorised Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its Resolution 660 (1990) and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 and to restore international peace and security in the area," ultimately giving justification to the Gulf War, and other action should Iraq break resolutions relevant to 660. This includes, as set out previously, 687 and all WMD resolutions, because 678 does not give any limitations on application provided the resolution is relevant to 660.
We then turn to UNSCR 686 which stated all the previous twelve resolutions regarding Iraq, including 678 and 660, still apply despite the ceasing hostilities. This ultimately means that should Iraq break 660 or subsequent resolutions relevant to 660 (like 687 and UNSCRs on WMDs), then member states of the UN can use all necessary means to uphold said relevant resolutions as per UNSCR 678.
UNSCR 1441 is then critical to this argument. In late 2002 UNSCR 1441 gave Iraq one final chance to comply with the conditions set out in resolutions 660, and other relevant UNCSRs, including 678, 686, 687, 707 which stated Iraq wasn't complying with 687 on destroying WMDs and allowing inspectors in, and other resolutions relevant to 660 including 715 and 1284. In the drafting of 1441 there was an attempt to include the need for a further UNSCR on what action should follow an Iraqi non-compliance with 1441. However, this wasn't included, and therefore as per UNSCR 686, Resolution 678 still applied to all resolutions relevant to 660.
We then turn to UNSCR 686 which stated all the previous twelve resolutions regarding Iraq, including 678 and 660, still apply despite the ceasing hostilities. This ultimately means that should Iraq break 660 or subsequent resolutions relevant to 660 (like 687 and UNSCRs on WMDs), then member states of the UN can use all necessary means to uphold said relevant resolutions as per UNSCR 678.
UNSCR 1441 is then critical to this argument. In late 2002 UNSCR 1441 gave Iraq one final chance to comply with the conditions set out in resolutions 660, and other relevant UNCSRs, including 678, 686, 687, 707 which stated Iraq wasn't complying with 687 on destroying WMDs and allowing inspectors in, and other resolutions relevant to 660 including 715 and 1284. In the drafting of 1441 there was an attempt to include the need for a further UNSCR on what action should follow an Iraqi non-compliance with 1441. However, this wasn't included, and therefore as per UNSCR 686, Resolution 678 still applied to all resolutions relevant to 660.
Credit: Ra Dragon
Following 1441, Iraq didn't comply, weapons inspectors were not allowed the unfettered access that 1441 effectively demanded via its reaffirming of other resolutions, and it ultimately meant Iraq breached 687 and subsequent resolutions on WMDs, resolutions relevant to 660. It therefore breached UNSCR 678 granting members the power to use all necessary means to enforce these resolutions, the same 678 that was still applicable due to both UNSCR 686, and the failure to include in 1441 the need for a further UNSCR should the international community face yet another Iraqi non-compliance. This therefore means under the UN's own resolutions, passed over more than a decade, the Iraq War was perfectly legal.
This may seem long winded, and abit like legal gymnastics to some, with many able to argue that UNSCR 678 was clearly only supposed to apply to the Gulf War. I can see that argument, and it's one I did ponder, but ultimately in the end disagreed with. If UNSCR 678 was supposed to be limited to the Gulf War, then the UN would have stated as much instead of passing UNSCR 686, and the UN when passing UNSCR 1441 wouldn't have done so unless it included the need for a further resolution in the event of Iraqi non-compliance.
In 1993 President Clinton authorised cruise missile strikes on Iraq after an attempted assassination against him in Kuwait, an operation recognised as legal due to UNSCR 678. He was at the time using necessary means to ensure peace in the area under 678, whilst also retaliating against a threat made to his person and the USA. In 1998 Iraq wasn't complying with resolution 687 and other WMDs resolutions (these were relevant to 660) and 678 was once again triggered with days of bombing by Anglo-America forces. The Iraq War has prior precedence as shown above, and clear legal basis in international law.
In 1993 President Clinton authorised cruise missile strikes on Iraq after an attempted assassination against him in Kuwait, an operation recognised as legal due to UNSCR 678. He was at the time using necessary means to ensure peace in the area under 678, whilst also retaliating against a threat made to his person and the USA. In 1998 Iraq wasn't complying with resolution 687 and other WMDs resolutions (these were relevant to 660) and 678 was once again triggered with days of bombing by Anglo-America forces. The Iraq War has prior precedence as shown above, and clear legal basis in international law.
Credit: Levi Clancy
The Iraq War is still a contentious issue in British society 17 years on. It divides people, sparks anger, and has tarnished the reputation of an arguably very successful Prime Minister. However, as I've clearly demonstrated above, the Iraq War is both legal in British law and international law. Domestically well defined powers were used by the Prime Minister, and a majority from Parliament was granted to him supporting war in Iraq, giving him a democratic mandate to back up his legal right. Internationally the UK and USA followed UNSC Resolutions to the letter, and did nothing the UNSC hadn't already authorised, using past precedent from 1993 and 1998 to do so. The invasion was conducted in accordance with Resolution 678 which was triggered by Iraqi non-compliance with 1441.
There's a lot to discuss when it comes to the merits of war in Iraq, was it the right or wrong decision? A perfectly reasonable question. But let's finally dispel this myth of illegality. Whether it be domestically or internationally, the Iraq War was legal.
There's a lot to discuss when it comes to the merits of war in Iraq, was it the right or wrong decision? A perfectly reasonable question. But let's finally dispel this myth of illegality. Whether it be domestically or internationally, the Iraq War was legal.
RSS Feed
