header-logo header-logo

Pre-empting Chilcot

05 March 2010 / Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC
Issue: 7407 / Categories: Opinion , Human rights
printer mail-detail
comment_5_4

The Chilcot team has completed the first phase of its Inquiry. It has revealed few new facts, but has reminded us of those already known. They confirm what ought to be Chilcot’s blunt conclusion: our leaders took us into a war that was illegal, immoral, unnecessary, and hugely destructive.

Chilcot was not set up to decide whether the Iraq war was lawful—if so one would have expected at least one lawyer among its members. Yet much of the evidence has been about the the way in which the issue of legality was faced by Tony Blair and his colleagues. They saw it as an inconvenience particularly because the US was untroubled by it—but it was cleverly used to divert attention from some very disreputable diplomacy in the run-up to the war. By creating a picture of legal uncertainty, the government disguised its defiance of the majority of international opinion.

In fact, international law is for once quite clear. The assault on Iraq could only be legal if authorised by a resolution of the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll