header-logo header-logo

05 March 2010 / Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC
Issue: 7407 / Categories: Opinion , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Pre-empting Chilcot

comment_5_4

The Chilcot team has completed the first phase of its Inquiry. It has revealed few new facts, but has reminded us of those already known. They confirm what ought to be Chilcot’s blunt conclusion: our leaders took us into a war that was illegal, immoral, unnecessary, and hugely destructive.

Chilcot was not set up to decide whether the Iraq war was lawful—if so one would have expected at least one lawyer among its members. Yet much of the evidence has been about the the way in which the issue of legality was faced by Tony Blair and his colleagues. They saw it as an inconvenience particularly because the US was untroubled by it—but it was cleverly used to divert attention from some very disreputable diplomacy in the run-up to the war. By creating a picture of legal uncertainty, the government disguised its defiance of the majority of international opinion.

In fact, international law is for once quite clear. The assault on Iraq could only be legal if authorised by a resolution of the UN Security Council. The US seemed prepared to flout this

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

DWF—11 appointments

DWF—11 appointments

DWF strengthens North West teams with 11 newly qualified solicitors

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll