Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
394.  In his ‘Supplementary Memorandum’, Mr Straw wrote:
“In this area of international law, recourse to the courts is not available. This means
that international law must be inherently less certain, and that, given the seriousness
of the issues, great care has to be taken in coming to a view. But the absence of
an external tribunal means that a view has in the end to be taken by the Attorney
General, on whose shoulders rests a great weight of responsibility.”155
395.  Asked whether there was a responsibility to be “all the more scrupulous in adhering
to the law” in circumstances where there was no court with jurisdiction to rule on the use
of force in Iraq, Mr Straw replied:
“Yes, of course. You have to be extremely scrupulous because it is a decision which
is made internally without external determination … but that’s a very separate point
from saying that … the correct view is on one side rather than the other. The correct
view was the correct view.”156
Mr Straw’s letter to Lord Goldsmith, 6 February 2003
396.  In a letter of 6 February, Mr Straw took issue with a number of the provisional
conclusions in Lord Goldsmith’s draft advice of 14 January.
397.  Mr Straw attached great importance to concessions made by France, Russia
and China (which he described as a defeat for them).
398.  But Mr Straw dismissed concessions made by the UK and the US as a
trade‑off which merely offered other members of the Security Council “some
procedural comfort”.
399.  That considerably understated the importance of the concessions by all
members of the P5 to create sufficient ambiguity about the meaning of the
resolution to command consensus in the Security Council.
400.  The UK had explicitly recognised during the negotiation of resolution
1441 that the inclusion of a provision for the Security Council to “consider” a
report would create the opportunity for France and others to argue that a further
decision would be required to determine whether Iraq was in material breach of
resolution 1441.
401.  In his letter Mr Straw did not refer to Lord Goldsmith’s minute to Mr Blair
of 30 January.
155 Statement, February 2010, ‘Supplementary Memorandum by the Rt Hon Jack Straw MP’.
156 Public hearing, 8 February 2010, pages 26-27.
72
Previous page | Contents | Next page