Previous page | Contents | Next page
3.5  |  Development of UK strategy and options, September to November 2002 –
the negotiation of resolution 1441
MR STRAW’S EVIDENCE TO THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE,
25 SEPTEMBER 2002
225.  Mr Straw told the Foreign Affairs Committee on 25 September that a new
Security Council resolution was desirable but not essential.
226.  During his appearance before the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) on
25 September, Mr Straw was asked if existing Security Council resolutions provided
a sufficient legal basis for military action without a further resolution.64
227.  Mr Straw referred to his speech the previous day, adding:
“It has never been the case that the only basis of international law [for the use of
force] is an extant resolution. Sometimes some people think it is and it is actually
clear from within the United Nations Charter itself that this is not the case.
“… there are various points in the Charter, which is one of the key bases of
international law, where the Charter itself refers to the inherent right of individual
members. So as far as this is concerned, the direct answer to your question is no,
we do not regard it as absolutely essential that there should be another Security
Council resolution. We do regard it as desirable. As to what legal advice we
receive if there is not a Security Council resolution, that frankly depends on the
circumstances at the time …”
228.  Mr Straw added that the UK did “not regard it [existing resolutions] as an
inadequate basis” for action, but “a clear, new resolution” was “desirable, not least
politically”. But there was “ample power” in the existing resolutions and “ample evidence
of a material breach”.
229.  Mr Straw emphasised the extent to which Saddam Hussein’s actions “in the last
20 years” posed a unique threat to peace and security.65 The UK approach in relation
to other proliferators was to pursue progress through diplomatic channels for as long
as possible, even if progress was slow, but it was impossible to do that with Iraq.
230.  When Mr Michael Wood saw the evidence, he reminded Mr Straw that the use
of force required express authorisation by the Security Council, which in turn required
a further decision from the Council, such as a finding of material breach.66
64 Minutes, Foreign Affairs Committee (House of Commons), 25 September 2002, [Evidence Session],
Qs 21‑24.
65 Minutes, Foreign Affairs Committee (House of Commons), 25 September 2002, [Evidence Session],
Qs 34‑35.
66 Minute Wood to PS [FCO], 4 October 2002, ‘FAC: Iraq: International Law’.
241
Previous page | Contents | Next page