|
stop press
|
|
Q. The UK Government claims today (16.3.03) that previous UN resolutions (678,687,1441) provide legal authority for use of armed force without another resolution. Is this true? The answers below are extracts from a legal briefing given to MPs by Rabinder Singh QC on 12.3.03 A. .... Only one of the previous 17 resolutions on Iraq authorised the use of force. That was resolution 678 adopted in 1990. This resolution authorised Member States acting in co-operation with the Government of Kuwait to use all necessary means to end Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait and to restore peace and security to the area. The authority to use force contained in this Resolution was brought to an end ... by a ceasefire agreement contained in Resolution 687. Resolution 687 was adopted in 1991.
Q. But Iraq is in breach of the ceasefire agreement, isn't it? A. The ceasefire agreement in Resolution 687 was conditional on Iraq notifying the Security Council of its acceptance of a disarmament programme contained in the resolution. Once Iraq had notified its acceptance to the Security Council, the formal ceasefire was effective, and the authority to use force was terminated. Resolution 687 makes it clear that once the ceasefire was effective, the Security Council, and not Member States, would be responsible for taking any further steps necessary to ensure the implementation of the disarmament programme contained in Resolution687 and to secure peace and security in the area.
Q. Iraq is in material breach of Resolution 1441. Why can't the US and the UK take action to enforce resolution 1441? Under paragraphs 4 and 11 of Resolution 1441, if Hans Blix and Mohamed El-Baradei discover that Iraq has failed to make a full and complete declaration of its programmes for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and conclude that Iraq is not co-operating with the weapons inspectors in revealing and destroying the weapons that it has, then they must report these findings to the Security Council. Under paragraph 12 of Resolution 1441, on receipt of such a report, the Security Council will convene to consider the situation and the need for compliance with all its relevant resolutions. In other words it is the Security Council which will decide whether Iraq is in breach of Resolution 1441, and it is the Security Council which will decide what to do about it. There is no authority in Resolution 1441 for Member States to use force unilaterally even if they themselves conclude that Iraq is not complying with the resolution.
Q. But Resolution 1441 warns Iraq of "serious consequences" if it does not comply A. Paragraph 13 of Resolution 1441 states that the Security Council "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." The words 'in that context', clearly indicate that any serious consequences which Iraq will face are to be decided upon in the context of the discussion by the Security Council envisaged by paragraph 12 of Resolution1441. In other words it is the Security Council which will decide whether serious consequences will follow and what those consequences will be. Paragraph 13 and the use of the words 'serious consequences' does not amount to an authorisation to Member States to use force unilaterally
|