Resolution 1441, by which Tony Blair and Jack Straw have laid so much store, simply reminds Saddam Hussein of the "serious consequences" of a failure to disarm referred to in earlier UN resolutions. The phrase falls far short of an instruction to UN member states to use "all necessary means" - the traditional UN euphemism for armed force.
Doesn't matter. Res. 678, the kick ass resolution, already did that and it applied to all subsequent resolutions. 1441 also "recalled" 678 and also included the phrase "final opportunity".
Who cares what France and Russia say they thought when 1441 was being negotiated. Powell has been very clear everyone knew what was at stake.
687, agreed at the end of the 1991 Gulf war overrode 678
No, 678 was one of 13 resolutions affirmed by 687.
Christopher Greenwood, professor of international law at the London School of Economics, challenges this majority view among lawyers, saying that 1441 could trigger previous resolutions, including 678. Those lawyers, like Prof Greenwood, who say there is a case for war under existing UN resolutions, say it is a mistake simply to look at the wording. Instead of dwelling on such phrases as "serious consequences", they say, the emphasis should be on the past UN obligations placed on the Iraqi regime. They make it clear that Iraq should have disarmed in 1991 under UN supervision yet has not done so. The delay is entirely the fault of Iraq, not the UN.
Right. |
