3.8 | Development of UK strategy and options, 8 to 20 March 2003

resolutions can be read as implying a delegation to the United States, with or without

the United Kingdom, to take these decisions verges on the absurd.”300

A range of views was expressed by speakers during the ensuing debate.

Lord Mayhew (Conservative) described the United Nations as “a relatively new

jurisdiction”.301 The world was far from having “an article or precedent” for every situation

it faced. As a result, there would often be arguments “which it would take years to litigate

in any international court to an authoritative conclusion”. He concluded that UN member

states “must sometimes have the courage to act when the law may not be explicitly cut

and dried and to bear the heavy duty themselves for doing what they conscientiously

believe to be necessary and lawful.”

Lord Mayhew stated that, because the cease-fire established under resolution 687 was

conditional, it had left resolution 678 undischarged: “in force, but … placed in abeyance

or suspension provided Iraq fulfilled its obligations and continued to fulfil the conditions”.

Because Iraq had never complied with those conditions, resolution 678 was no longer

in abeyance, but available. Those who refused to agree a further resolution were

entitled to make that choice, but it could not have the effect of a veto on the operation

of resolution 678.

Lord Hannay, a former UK Permanent Representative to the United Nations, stated that

resolution 1441 had not, on its own, provided authority for the use of force in the event

of non-compliance because it had not needed to.302 The authority already existed in

resolution 687. That there had been Iraqi non-compliance since resolution 687 was “surely

not seriously in doubt”. That there had been some limited compliance was not the point.

Unfortunately, the Security Council had “fallen prey to divided counsels”. The purpose of

the draft second resolution had been political, not legal: “to draw a line under the phase

on non-compliance with Security Council resolution 1441 and to signal that serious

consequences were now imminent.”

Lord Hannay concluded that military action by the UK, the US and other allies:

“… does not herald either a new doctrine bypassing the system laid down in the UN

Charter, nor the flouting of international law. In fact, it is far less daring than was the

decision by NATO to use force against Yugoslavia in the case of Kosovo …”

Lord Howell (Conservative) stated that the question of legality “ought to have been settled

long before we reached the point at which the troops are going into action”.303 There was

“no doubt” that the case for intervention had been “poorly put forward”, adding greatly

to tensions.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a former Law Lord, stated that he found it “impossible as presently

advised” to accept the argument offered by Lord Goldsmith in his Written Answer to