Regardless of whether or not the use of armed force would be legal without a second resolution, it is important to note that no Security Council resolution , however worded, could ever authorise war.

For more on the difference between war and peace enforcement, see www.war.inquiry.freeuk.com which contains a dossier of legal and military opinions – including (in paper F) quotes from military doctrine experts in the British Armed forces Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre – set up by the Blair Government post Bosnia, in part to address the gap between peace-"keeping" and "war".

To confirm for yourself that the UN cannot authorise war do this simple test – word-search the text of the UN charter for the words "war" and all the euphemisms for war you can think of. An easily searchable version is on the web-site of Yale University Law School’s Avalon project (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm). You will find that all references to war in the charter describe war as a thing of the past, and that the uses of armed force which the Security Council may authorise are limited to such force as is necessary for a specified purpose (restoring peace and security) and only under certain conditions.

IF YOU ARE A JOURNALIST, PLEASE CHALLENGE WEASEL WORDS ABOUT WAR. Please DO NOT use (or report, without challenging) language that misleads the public into believing that the UN can authorise war. It can’t - see www.war.inquiry.freeuk.com under "WEASEL WORDS" – text of letter of complaint to BBC that broadcast errors concerning the legitimacy of war are biasing public opinion towards war.