Iraq invasion had no legal basis in international law

#1
Telegraph reporting
The invasion of Iraq had no "legal basis in international law",
the senior government lawyer Sir Michael Wood has told the Chilcot inquiry.
Chilcot Inquiry

It looks as tho Straw deserves to be recalled for some further questions.

Chilcot Live Feed
 
#3
RhodieBKK said:
Telegraph reporting
The invasion of Iraq had no "legal basis in international law",
the senior government lawyer Sir Michael Wood has told the Chilcot inquiry.
How will this affect the servicemen who refused to fight? IIRC an RAF doctor got a couple of years for refusing to RSVP to Tony's invite to the party in Iraq. There were others too.

No obligation to obey an illegal order if my memory serves.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#4
The question, the real, underlying question, especially for anyone who was out in Iraq on TELIC is -


So what? How does this affect anything?


My suggestion - it does not. It means nothing, and will have no impact on anyone, apart from possibly a lot of people who will (justifiably) say "I told you so".

The dogs bark, but the caravn moves on...............
 
#5
Thursday and Friday will both be interesting with Mr Chilcot.

Friday for Blair but Thursday in particular for Lord Goldsmith who told TCB that it was legal. I suspect that he'll be an insufferable prick.
 
#6
Ursus.Maritimus said:
Thursday and Friday will both be interesting with Mr Chilcot.

Friday for Blair but Thursday in particular for Lord Goldsmith who told TCB that it was legal. I suspect that he'll be an insufferable prick.
To state the bloody obvious!! :lol:
 
#7
RhodieBKK said:
Telegraph reporting
The invasion of Iraq had no "legal basis in international law",
the senior government lawyer Sir Michael Wood has told the Chilcot inquiry.
Chilcot Inquiry

It looks as tho Straw deserves to be recalled for some further questions.

Chilcot Live Feed
Well won't that just clogg up the courts with compo claims - " Your tank killed my camel!"
 
#8
Ancient_Mariner said:
RhodieBKK said:
Telegraph reporting
The invasion of Iraq had no "legal basis in international law",
the senior government lawyer Sir Michael Wood has told the Chilcot inquiry.
How will this affect the servicemen who refused to fight? IIRC an RAF doctor got a couple of years for refusing to RSVP to Tony's invite to the party in Iraq. There were others too.

No obligation to obey an illegal order if my memory serves.
Watched it this morning and Wood said the view of FCO and MOD lawyers was that any soldiers who participated were entirely in the clear because Goldsmith had said the invasion was legal.


Wood's view was unequivocal though, in his opinion (and the opinion of the FCO) the invasion was not legal under international law.

Edit:

AM: Apologies, I misread your question somehow.
 
#9
Mr_Baiter said:
Ursus.Maritimus said:
Thursday and Friday will both be interesting with Mr Chilcot.

Friday for Blair but Thursday in particular for Lord Goldsmith who told TCB that it was legal. I suspect that he'll be an insufferable prick.
To state the bloody obvious!! :lol:
Shared a flat with Bliar, it had to rub off..........
 
#10
Banker said:
Mr_Baiter said:
Ursus.Maritimus said:
Thursday and Friday will both be interesting with Mr Chilcot.

Friday for Blair but Thursday in particular for Lord Goldsmith who told TCB that it was legal. I suspect that he'll be an insufferable prick.
To state the bloody obvious!! :lol:
Shared a flat with Bliar, it had to rub off..........
And if he wasn't sunk to the nuts in Tony then, he certainly was in 2003!
 
#11
Strait_Jacket said:
Ancient_Mariner said:
RhodieBKK said:
Telegraph reporting
The invasion of Iraq had no "legal basis in international law",
the senior government lawyer Sir Michael Wood has told the Chilcot inquiry.
How will this affect the servicemen who refused to fight? IIRC an RAF doctor got a couple of years for refusing to RSVP to Tony's invite to the party in Iraq. There were others too.

No obligation to obey an illegal order if my memory serves.
Watched it this morning and Wood said the view of FCO and MOD lawyers was that any soldiers who participated were entirely in the clear because Goldsmith had said the invasion was legal.


Wood's view was unequivocal though, in his opinion (and the opinion of the FCO) the invasion was not legal under international law.
Simples. If the various bits of government can't agree on the legality of a particular action why the heck should the populace?
 
#12
Strait_Jacket said:
Ancient_Mariner said:
Wood's view was unequivocal though, in his opinion (and the opinion of the FCO) the invasion was not legal under international law.
Sadly he did not have the courage of his conviction,
unlike his female colleague.
A spate of resignations would have made it difficult for Goldenballs to greenlight Teflon.

Caught a mention but missed the gist - anybody pick up on "this morning's declassification"?
 
#13
RhodieBKK said:
Telegraph reporting
The invasion of Iraq had no "legal basis in international law",
the senior government lawyer Sir Michael Wood has told the Chilcot inquiry.
Chilcot Inquiry

It looks as tho Straw deserves to be recalled for some further questions.

Chilcot Live Feed
But according to the BBC he said:

Sir Michael said he had always made it clear that it was ultimately up to Lord Goldsmith to advise ministers on whether war was lawful.
 
#14
ashie said:
RhodieBKK said:
Telegraph reporting
The invasion of Iraq had no "legal basis in international law",
the senior government lawyer Sir Michael Wood has told the Chilcot inquiry.
Chilcot Inquiry

It looks as tho Straw deserves to be recalled for some further questions.

Chilcot Live Feed
But according to the BBC he said:

Sir Michael said he had always made it clear that it was ultimately up to Lord Goldsmith to advise ministers on whether war was lawful.

And Goldsmith knew it was illegal under UN treaty to which we were signed up…


"…serious consequences…" - NOT OK to go to war.

"...all necessary means…" - OK to go war.


Resulution 1441 did not state "...all necessary means…"
 
#15
The rationale for Lord Goldsmith's opinion that 1441 provided casus belli was viewed with incredulity within legal circles by everybody but him.
 
#16
In regard to earlier questions, I don't believe that these developments make any legal difference to the situation of members of the armed forces who either obeyed or disobeyed military orders in connection with this campaign. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, for example, contains Article 33 (see below) and I believe the position under British service and criminal law is similar. With clear advice eventually being issued to the Chiefs of Staff by HMG's chief law officer that the campaign would be lawful, I think it would be very difficult to argue retrospectively that the campaign was MANIFESTLY unlawful - even if a case can be made that it was in fact unlawful.

This is important because the nation - and other service personnel and not just the chain of command - must be able to rely on members of the armed forces to carry out the lawful orders they are given without being expected to debate the intricacies of international law. The duty not to carry out MANIFESTLY unlawful orders is also extremely important, of course.

Article 33
Superior orders and prescription of law
1. The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a
person pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or
civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless:
(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government
or the superior in question;
(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and
(c) The order was not MANIFESTLY unlawful. [my emphasis]
2. For the purposes of this article, orders to commit genocide or crimes against
humanity are manifestly unlawful.
 
#17
RhodieBKK said:
...........................
Caught a mention but missed the gist - anybody pick up on "this morning's declassification"?
If it was the same comment that I heard, it was a reference to Lord Goldsmith's diary when one of the lawyers (David Brummel - Legal secretary to the Law Officers)was being questioned. He was being asked about particular meetings that were held on 9th(?) March 2003. AIUI, the question referred to the classification of the diary rather than to the meetings listed in it.
 
#18
hackle said:
... The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, for example, contains Article 33 (see below) and I believe the position under British service and criminal law is similar... I think it would be very difficult to argue retrospectively that the campaign was MANIFESTLY unlawful - even if a case can be made that it was in fact unlawful.
Article 33
Superior orders and prescription of law
1. The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a
person pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or
civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless:
(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government
or the superior in question;
(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and
(c) The order was not MANIFESTLY unlawful. [my emphasis]
2. For the purposes of this article, orders to commit genocide or crimes against
humanity are manifestly unlawful.
Just to add that I was instrumental, with the support of those representing UK MoD, in having that magic word "MANIFESTLY" inserted in a recommendation to member states which is going through the Council of Europe at Strasbourg concerning the human rights of armed forces personnel.
 
#20
It seems t have been replaced with a note about no fly zones....
 

Top