Challenge against War Filed in British Court
Inter Press Service
to Alternative Reader Index
LONDON - The Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament (CND) has filed a case in the High Court in London to stop the
British government from going to war with Iraq.
A petition filed by the CND is
due to be argued in court on Monday December 9. The court will decide then
whether this unprecedented action is justifiable.
The case for the CND is being
prepared by the Matrix chamber of barristers of which Cherie Blair, wife of
Prime Minister Tony Blair, is a member. A CND spokesman told IPS Wednesday,
however, that Cherie Blair is not personally involved in the case.
The case rests on the text of the
United Nations Resolution 1441. The CND argues that it is normal to use the
expression "any necessary means" to denote sanction of military
action. "No such expression appears in the resolution," Tony Myers,
campaigns officer with CND told IPS Wednesday. "We are arguing that
military action would be unlawful without going back to the UN and seeking
express approval for it."
Myers acknowledged that
"there is no precedent for a small organization going to court to stop a
government going to war." But he said the CND is hopeful that the court
will admit the case at the preliminary hearing on Monday.
A petition has been filed in the
High Court against Prime Minister Tony Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, and
Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon. The CND case will be argued by Rabinder Singh and
Kilroy of Matrix, and Michael
Fordham of Blackstone Chambers.
The hearing will take place the
day after December 8, which is the date for Iraq to comply with the requirement
to list all the sites and programs relevant to weapons of mass destruction.
"If war on Iraq is
unleashed, 500,000 could die," says Carol Naughton, chair of CND. "We
face the real possibility of a first use of a nuclear weapon, which could be
British, American or Israeli. We are acting on behalf of all the citizens of the
world who want to stop war on Iraq."
The CND campaign is being
supported by several MPs.
The petition filed in the court
says: "Security Council Resolution 1441 does not authorize the use of force
by member states of the UN. The UK would be in breach of international law if it
were to use force against Iraq in reliance on Resolution 1441 without a further
Security Council Resolution."
The petition points out that the
UN Security Council resolution offers Iraq a "final opportunity to comply
with its disarmament obligations". The petition points out that paragraphs
4, 11 and 12 of Resolution 1441 deal with the event of non-compliance by Iraq
with the terms of the resolution.
The petition points out that the
resolution says noncompliance"shall constitute a further material breach of
Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment." The
resolution therefore fully respects the competence of the Security Council in
the maintenance of international peace and security, in conformity with the
Charter of the United Nations, the petition says.
"But despite these clear
statements on the meaning of SCR 1441, several ministers of the UK government
and United States officials have indicated that, in the event of noncompliance
with SCR 1441 by Iraq, the UK and the U.S. would be entitled to take military
action against Iraq even without a further Security Council resolution,"
the petition says.
The petition argues that the use
of force by Britain against Iraq would not be justified under international law
unless: (a) Iraq mounted a direct attack on the United Kingdom or one of its
allies and that ally requested the United Kingdom's assistance; or (b) an attack
by Iraq on the United Kingdom or one of its allies was imminent and could be
averted in no way other than by the use of force; or (c) the United Nations
Security Council authorized the use of force in clear terms.
The petition says: "It would
be extraordinary if, having failed to obtain an express authorization for the
use of force, having incorporated minute changes to the final draft whose sole
purpose was to exclude the possibility of 'automaticity' and 'hidden triggers'
and to preserve the role of the Security Council, and having publicly agreed in
their explanation of the vote for adoption of SCR 1441 that there was no such
implied authorization for force, the UK and the U.S. were to be able to use SCR
1441 as authority for the use of force without a further Security Council
The petition adds: "In our
view the implied authorization arguments put forward by the UK and the U.S.
Would undermine the control exercised by the Security Council which is an
essential feature of lawful delegation under the Chapter VII. These arguments
would effectively allow member states to take unilateral decisions on the
interpretation of resolutions, reading into them authorization to take action
which does not appear clearly on the face of the resolution."
Government solicitor Diana Babar
said in reply to the petition that it seeks an assurance from the British
government that it will not attack Iraq without a further resolution from the UN
Security Council, but that "there is no legal obligation upon the proposed
defendants to provide any such assurance, and they do not consider it
appropriate to provide such an assurance."
The government solicitor said in
reply: "There is no legal obligation upon the proposed defendants to engage
in a debate about legal analysis...and they decline to do so." The
statement added: "There are a number of legal reasons why any attempt by
your client to claim relief in the courts in relation to these matters should
not succeed, and would be strongly resisted by my clients."
The government solicitor said
"the matter is non-justifiable and the courts will not intervene to dictate
the conduct of foreign policy, especially, we would add, in a matter of high
policy relating to a decision as to whether and when the United Kingdom would
engage in military action against another state."
Copyright 2002 IPS
05, 2002 Bulatlat.com
want to know what you think of this article.