G
ganjavih
Guest
Attack illegal, experts say
By JEFF SALLOT
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Ottawa — The U.S.-led coalition's war against Iraq is illegal, say dozens of Canadian law professors and experts in international law, including a member of the Liberal government caucus.
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien stops just short of condemning Washington's planned war as illegal, saying instead that it is "not justified."
But Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, a McGill University law school professor and one of Canada's best-known experts on international law, says launching an attack on Iraq violates the United Nations Charter.
An open letter signed by 31 of Canada's professors of international law at 15 law faculties from coast to coast makes the same point.
The letter, written on the eve of the deadline for the looming conflict, says a U.S. attack "would be a fundamental breach of international law and would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War."
The letter also says "illegal action by the U.S. and its allies would simply return us to an international order based on imperial ambition and coercive force.
"We condemn any such action in the strongest terms."
The UN Charter forbids countries to wage war except in self-defence or when authorized by the UN Security Council to preserve or restore international peace.
Mr. Cotler says the United States cannot say it is acting in self-defence unless it is clear it is about to be attacked by Iraq.
"That armed attack has to be at least imminent. There has to be evidence of a clear and present danger of such an armed attack. And to the present time such evidence has not be adduced," Mr. Cotler said.
He said Mr. Chrétien might not be as explicit in his condemnation of the planned U.S. military campaign because "the Prime Minister takes the view that the legal perspective is not the only perspective to be considered."
Moreover, other legal experts may take a different view, Mr. Cotler said. "I've given you my view."
Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham, who is a former University of Toronto law professor, says legal scholars may be debating the Iraqi crisis for years to come.
The U.S. government's legal experts say they find justification in old Security Council resolutions authorizing force to end Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and setting out the terms of the ceasefire after the Persian Gulf war in 1991.
The ceasefire agreement requires Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's refusal to disarm violates the ceasefire and thus the United States and its allies can resume hostilities, the United States argues.
But this is a fatally flawed argument, said John Currie, a University of Ottawa law school professor and one of the drafters of the letter.
The ceasefire resolution says the Security Council "decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution."
This means the Security Council — not the United States, Britain or other council members acting on their own — must decide on further use of force, Mr. Currie said.
The United States gave up its effort to secure a new UN resolution on Monday in the face of threatened vetoes by France and Russia and opposition by Germany and several other members of the council.
Security Council members "have the legal right to ensure that force is not used unless all other avenues of peaceful resolution have been tried and failed," the professors say in their letter.
Mr. Cotler and the 31 professors condemn Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's record of human-rights abuse and aggression.
While the Iraqi leader is "clearly a war criminal, this does not necessarily authorize the use of force against him, unless such recourse to the use of force is consonant with international law," Mr. Cotler said.
By JEFF SALLOT
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Ottawa — The U.S.-led coalition's war against Iraq is illegal, say dozens of Canadian law professors and experts in international law, including a member of the Liberal government caucus.
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien stops just short of condemning Washington's planned war as illegal, saying instead that it is "not justified."
But Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, a McGill University law school professor and one of Canada's best-known experts on international law, says launching an attack on Iraq violates the United Nations Charter.
An open letter signed by 31 of Canada's professors of international law at 15 law faculties from coast to coast makes the same point.
The letter, written on the eve of the deadline for the looming conflict, says a U.S. attack "would be a fundamental breach of international law and would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War."
The letter also says "illegal action by the U.S. and its allies would simply return us to an international order based on imperial ambition and coercive force.
"We condemn any such action in the strongest terms."
The UN Charter forbids countries to wage war except in self-defence or when authorized by the UN Security Council to preserve or restore international peace.
Mr. Cotler says the United States cannot say it is acting in self-defence unless it is clear it is about to be attacked by Iraq.
"That armed attack has to be at least imminent. There has to be evidence of a clear and present danger of such an armed attack. And to the present time such evidence has not be adduced," Mr. Cotler said.
He said Mr. Chrétien might not be as explicit in his condemnation of the planned U.S. military campaign because "the Prime Minister takes the view that the legal perspective is not the only perspective to be considered."
Moreover, other legal experts may take a different view, Mr. Cotler said. "I've given you my view."
Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham, who is a former University of Toronto law professor, says legal scholars may be debating the Iraqi crisis for years to come.
The U.S. government's legal experts say they find justification in old Security Council resolutions authorizing force to end Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and setting out the terms of the ceasefire after the Persian Gulf war in 1991.
The ceasefire agreement requires Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's refusal to disarm violates the ceasefire and thus the United States and its allies can resume hostilities, the United States argues.
But this is a fatally flawed argument, said John Currie, a University of Ottawa law school professor and one of the drafters of the letter.
The ceasefire resolution says the Security Council "decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution."
This means the Security Council — not the United States, Britain or other council members acting on their own — must decide on further use of force, Mr. Currie said.
The United States gave up its effort to secure a new UN resolution on Monday in the face of threatened vetoes by France and Russia and opposition by Germany and several other members of the council.
Security Council members "have the legal right to ensure that force is not used unless all other avenues of peaceful resolution have been tried and failed," the professors say in their letter.
Mr. Cotler and the 31 professors condemn Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's record of human-rights abuse and aggression.
While the Iraqi leader is "clearly a war criminal, this does not necessarily authorize the use of force against him, unless such recourse to the use of force is consonant with international law," Mr. Cotler said.