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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll