|
âIllegal warâ could mean soldiers face prosecution
Ministers face the real prospect of waging an illegal war, which could lead to British soldiers being prosecuted by the newly constituted International Criminal Court (ICC).Do you see the US point of view now Tony ? The shaky legal grounds upon which Britain and America are expected to launch their military offensive have already been exposed by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan. But Mr Annan's warning that military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution would be illegal is being supported by a growing number of senior British lawyers. So Mr. Annan now determines what UK foreign policy can and cannot do ? Stephen Solley QC, an international human rights lawyer, said yesterday: "I feel this is a defining moment in our history which our children will want to ask us about. No one has made a legal case for war." God help us if we need to take action but have to wait for France, Russia, China, and Syria to tell us it is legal. But he said it was also clear British troops could be the first to face war crimes charges at the ICC. The court, which was formally opened in the Hague yesterday, has the power to bring to trial individual soldiers, commanders and politicians charged with war crimes. International lawyers argue that any military attack that killed Iraqi civilians could lead to British soldiers being prosecuted at the new court. But because America and Iraq are not signatories to the Rome treaty, which created the ICC, their soldiers are immune from prosecution. Works for me The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, is known to have advised the Prime Minister on the legal issues surrounding the prospect of war, but it is understood that the risk of soldiers being prosecuted by the ICC is of most concern. Military action in breach of UN resolutions would mean little if the sanction constituted no more than a finding that the UK was in violation of international law. But potential sentences of life imprisonment for soldiers acting on the orders of the Prime Minister will have concentrated the minds of the Government's law officers. Peter Carter QC, chairman of the Bar's human rights committee, said British commanders would have to "adapt a very different attitude to their American colleagues so they can justify every military act of attrition against every target." He said it could cause real difficulties in joint actions between the forces.
Whoda thunk it? The US did smarty pants! James Crawford, a professor at Cambridge University and a member of Cherie Booth's chambers Matrix, said it was important to realise no "criminal charges" could be brought against Britain or America for a use of force that breached UN or international law. But he added that, under the terms of the ICC, British soldiers and commanders could be prosecuted for war crimes. In the past few weeks, legal opinion has become increasingly unified in the belief that the US and its allies cannot rely on the principle of anticipatory self-defence to justify action against Iraq in the absence of a fresh UN resolution. Article 51 of the UN charter allows self-defence only if an armed attack occurs against a member state and, even then, only until the Security Council has taken action. Ya way! Not! Posted by: domingo 2003-03-12 |
|
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=11193 |