Lawyers stress the need for UN approval
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Lawyers from Cherie Booth's chambers successfully argued yesterday that Britain would break international law if it used armed force against Iraq.
Rabinder Singh QC and Alison MacDonald, from the Prime Minister's wife's Matrix chambers, said an attack on Iraq could not be justified under international law unless it attacked Britain or one of its allies.
They argued that force would have to be authorised by the United Nations Security Council "in clear terms" for Britain to be entitled to take part in any attackunder international law.
The barristers were taking part in a mock hearing held at Gray's Inn, London, chaired by Professor Colin Warbrick, of Durham University.
Professor Warbrick, who was acting as judge, came down on their side after a day-long hearing yesterday.
Phil Shiner, of the Public Interest Lawyers organisation, which arranged the event, claimed the ruling gave the Government "no crumbs of comfort". He added: "The significance of this is that the British Government is threatening to act outside international law but the judiciary will not look at issues to do with defence of the realm.
"We have subjected the issue to the same degree of legal scrutiny as a judicial review and the judge has found it not lawful. If action is unlawful then the public will find it morally and politically unacceptable."
Mr Shiner said Professor Warbrick had decided that action against Iraq would be unlawful without a new UN Security Council resolution authorising force.
Professor Warbrick said existing UN resolutions did not authorise force and the pre-emptive doctrine proposed by the United States was prohibited under international law.
Another of Ms Booth's colleagues from Matrix Chambers, Julian Knowles, presented the case that such an attack would be legal.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments