1.2 |
Development of UK strategy and options, September 2000 to September
2001
“… the Law
Officers have previously accepted that a respectable legal argument
that
force is
justified on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity can be
made if:
(a) there
is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the
international
community
as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large
scale,
requiring
immediate and urgent relief;
(b) it is
objectively clear that there is, in all the circumstances, no
practicable
alternative
to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and
(c) the
proposed use of force is both necessary and proportionate to the
aim
being
pursued (i.e. the relief of humanitarian need) and is strictly
limited in time
and scope
to that aim: that is to say, that it is the minimum necessary to
achieve
that
end.”
164.
Mr Brummell
stated that Lord Williams had:
•
noted the
assessments in the letters from Mr Patey and Mr
McKane;
•
noted that
the assessment in relation to the southern NFZ appeared
“weaker
than that
provided in … January 2000”;
•
noted the
statement in Mr McKane’s letter of 8 February, that “if UK and
US
operations
in the No-Fly Zones were to cease, it would be more difficult
to
sustain the
necessary political support for the northern No-Fly Zone”,
but
considered
it “questionable whether any weight may be attached to this
in
considering
the legal justification for the southern No-Fly Zone”;
•
stressed
that “every effort must be made to avoid incidental loss of
civilian
life,
injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects”. Given the
difficulties in
assessing
casualties, Lord Williams stressed that it was possible for him
to
take a view
on the legal justification of the NFZs only “on the
understanding
that
Ministers are satisfied that every effort is indeed made to avoid
civilian
casualties”;
and
•
noted the
“significant diminution of international support for the Zones,
and
indeed in
some cases overt criticism … in contrast to the wider consensus
in
favour of
the establishment of the Zones in 1991 and 1992”.
165.
Mr Brummell
continued:
“Having
regard to the above points the Attorney considers that it is now
more
questionable
whether a respectable legal argument can be maintained that force
is
justified
on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity. However, on the
basis
of the
assurances set out in your [Mr McKane’s] letter of 8 February the
Attorney
accepts
that it is still possible
on balance
to argue that the maintenance of the
No-Fly
Zones is justified as a necessary and proportionate use of force to
prevent a
humanitarian
crisis. He stresses that the judgement as to whether such an
argument
can still
be advanced is a very fine one.
221