What war crime has Tony Blair committed?

Perhaps more accurately, the Blair critics are attempting to claim some positive basis for their normative views.

They are not saying that under a fair system Blair would be a war criminal, they are saying he is a war criminal. That is factually incorrect.

Therefore, I do not believe that the legal basis for the Iraq War claimed by the UK Gov stands up to scrutiny.

Except it wasn't acting in self defence because there were no weapons of mass destruction and no credible evidence that there were.

It is possible to act in self-defence against things not involving weapons of mass destruction

They may well argue they had reason to believe WMDs existed there

Hmm. Fair enough. While it wasn't argued by the government at the time, do you think a better case for war against Iraq could have been made on grounds of the Baathist regime's breach of the Genocide Convention, which requires participants to prevent or punish genocide committed by any state, as defined in Article 2 of the convention?

It is possible to act in self-defence against things not involving weapons of mass destruction

They may well argue they had reason to believe WMDs existed there

How was the Iraq War illegal? It was consistent with international law and approved by the British parliament (which, in case you have forgotten, is the supreme lawmaking body in our society)

So which one are you going with? That their intervention was justified on the basis of self-defence without invoking the possibility of WMD, or by invoking the possibility of WMD ("reason to believe WMDs existed there" ) ?

Regardless, this is not the UK's current position, which I outlined above in post 80 and explained why it is flawed.

What do you mean 'going with'? I am not the attorney general at a select committee meeting. I am simply pointing out holes in the arguments being made that Iraq was clearly an illegal war.

Please put forth a position for me to critique, or save yourself the bother of replying.

the dodgy dossier, it was a law that was approved based on lies. He should be tried for it.

I have already made a contribution, you simply addressed it in the wrong way.

What is your position on the legality of the Iraq War and why?

If you cannot answer that question then you have no place on this thread. If you have already addressed that question please refer to me to the post(s) in which you have done so.

The majority of prominent international lawyers are in agreement that the Iraq war was illegal. This has nothing to do with parliamentary approval, it's the fact that the US and allies had no right to attempt to use an old Security Council Resolution on Iraq as a justification for an invasion which was for the sole purpose of protecting their interests in the Middle East.

Who are they? Noam Chomsky isn't an international lawyer. Tom Bingham absolutely, but anyone with basic understanding of law knows it is not simply a case of 'x thinks y therefore it's illegal' that's why we have judiciary in the first place to interpret and discuss.

Iraq failed to comply with the UN security councils demands, that was a breach of law. The legality was approved by the Attorney General at the time.

Iraq failed to comply with the UN security councils demands, that was a breach of law.

The legality was approved by the Attorney General at the time.

Nevertheless you can't justify the invasion by reviving an old Security Council Resolution that was not intended for the 2003 invasion in the first place, that's a wide stretch and makes a mockery of the laws which are supposed to be applied equally to every state.

In the UK FCO Memorandum in 2003 the government justified the legal basis for the Iraq War on the following grounds:

1. SCR 687 didn't repeal 678, and held that the authorisation of use of force "could be revived if the UNSC determined that Iraq was acting in material breach of the requirements of SCR 687".

2. SCR 1441 provided Iraq "a final opportunity to comply and it provided for any failure to be considered by the UNSC". However, the wording does not imply that a new UNSC resolution is necessary for further action to be taken, thus SCR 1441 impliedly authorised the revival of SCR 678 once Iraq had failed their "final opportunity".

However, these justifications are flawed.

Firstly, it assumes that it is possible for the UK to unilaterally determine whether there had been a material breach and that the use of force was justified. This was opposed by China, France and Germany - all of whom argued that it was exclusively for the UNSC to make that judgement call (and the Secretary General of the UN also supported this view).

Secondly, its interpretation of SCR 1441 is flawed because "to be considered by the UNSC" implies that any subsequent action must first be considered and acted upon by the UNSC.

Therefore, I do not believe that the legal basis for the Iraq War claimed by the UK Gov stands up to scrutiny.

Please see my previous post regarding the UNSC Resolutions providing a legal basis for the Iraq War.


Lord Goldsmith believed that the war would be illegal, until it became apparent that it was imminent and he then changed his mind.

Regardless, the AG of the UK does not decide, nor is he the ultimate arbiter of, international law, i.e. he cannot confer legality upon an illegal action.

Is being Tony Blair really not enough of a crime?