3.5 |
Development of UK strategy and options, September to November 2002
–
the
negotiation of resolution 1441
951.
Mr Macleod’s
account of the involvement of the Attorney General in 1998
is
supported
by contemporaneous records that the Inquiry has seen.
952.
Ms Adams
contrasted the process during the drafting of resolution 1441 with
that
which
subsequently took place on the second resolution and other cases
when:
“… the
Attorney General was presented with a draft and it was clear, ‘This
is our
objective
for this resolution. Is this text sufficient to achieve this
objective, and
if it isn’t,
what do we need as a sort of legal red line?’ … the Attorney was
able
to say ‘I think
X or Y’ and therefore, that informed the process of the
negotiation
953.
Sir Michael
Wood told the Inquiry that the FCO Legal Advisers “kept the
Attorney
General
informed” about the “course of the negotiations” and about the
advice they were
giving as
the draft resolution developed: “both to ensure that he was in a
position to give
advice to
Ministers and to the negotiators at any time, either on request or
as he saw fit,
whether or
not his advice was formally sought”.347
954.
Sir Michael
explained:
“What was
in my view more important than a formal request for advice was for
the
FCO Legal
Advisers to keep the Attorney General’s Office as fully informed as
they
could
throughout the negotiations. This we did. We sent to his Office
anything we
saw that
was legally significant as soon as we received it, and we kept him
informed
of the
advice that we were giving. We wished to ensure that the legal
advice we
were giving
within the FCO and beyond on a matter of such importance did not
differ
from his
own views.
“The
Attorney’s advice was … obtained during the negotiation of 1441,
but not
at every
stage (which would have been impractical, given the complexity of
the
negotiations
and the manner in which they were being carried out). His views
on
the revival
argument, and the kind of language that was needed in any
resolution
if it was
of itself to authorise the use of force, were well
known.”348
955.
Sir Michael
Wood also told the Inquiry that there were “no formal or other
rules”
on seeking
the Attorney General’s advice during the negotiation of UN Security
Council
resolutions,
“either in general or in exceptional circumstances like 1441”; and
that it “all
depends on
the circumstances”. The FCO Legal Advisers had “made it clear
throughout
to policy
clients, including Ministers, that it was highly desirable to seek
the Attorney’s
advice, and
in particular that the Attorney’s advice would be needed before
military force
346
Public
hearing, 20 July 2010, pages 13‑14.
347
Statement,
15 March 2011, page 1.
348
Statement,
15 March 2011, page 12.
349
Statement,
15 March 2011, page 14.
369