Attorney general's tricky call

Attorney general's tricky call

By Jon Silverman Home Affairs analyst

International law can often seem opaque but, boiled down to its essentials, the attorney general's statement on the legal basis for an attack on Iraq is clear and simple.

Lord Goldsmith said that there was no need for a further Security Council resolution because the authority to use force already existed in the form of two previous resolutions.

Resolution 678 was the banner under which a coalition of powers ejected Iraq from Kuwait in 1991.

There is great concern over the legal position

And Resolution 687, setting out the ceasefire conditions after that conflict, imposed "continuing obligations " on Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction.

That resolution, said the attorney general, "suspended but did not terminate " the authority to use force contained in the earlier resolution.

So, when the much-discussed Resolution 1441 was passed by the Security Council - determining that Saddam's failure to eliminate his weapons of mass destruction amounted to a material breach of 687 - the legal framework for war was fully constructed.

So far, so straightforward. But international law is not a science and the attorney general's statement is based on opinions provided by a range of experts.

One is Professor Christopher Greenwood, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics.

"Of course, it is a matter of judgment," he says, "but I do think the attorney general's reasoning on this holds up.

"Resolution 1441 required the Security Council to consider Saddam's intransigence on the weapons of mass destruction.

Lord Goldsmith is a Cabinet member

"It did not stipulate that it had to take any further action to legitimise the use of force. "

Not so, says Dr Matthew Craven, of the School of Oriental and African Studies, one of the signatories to a letter in the Guardian earlier this month, which expressed deep unease over a war without further UN authorisation.

His verdict on the attorney general's reasoning?

"He is placing much greater reliance on the earlier resolutions than on 1441.

"I am not sure that 1441 was intended as an open-ended authorisation to use force.

"It is clear that someone has to make a decision that a material breach has occurred and the government appears to believe that this can be decided unilaterally."

Having decided that war is lawful without any further resolutions, Lord Goldsmith will now find himself fully occupied in the days to come because his authority will be required by the military when selecting targets to strike.

His predecessor during the bombing of Kosovo, John (now Lord ) Morris, said it was one of the most onerous duties he had to perform as a government law officer.