5 | Advice on the legal basis for military action, November 2002 to March 2003

627. Mr Straw’s Private Office had separately replied on 11 March to a request from

Sir David Manning for advice on the implications of the argument that a French veto

would be unreasonable.250

628. In the reply, the FCO advised that there was “no recognised concept of an

‘unreasonable veto’”; and warned that: “In describing a French veto as ‘unreasonable’

we would therefore be inviting others to describe any future vetoes as ‘unreasonable’

too.” That could have implications in other areas “such as the Middle East”. In addition,

“describing the veto as unreasonable would make no difference to the legal position”.

There was “no implied condition” in the UN Charter that a veto was valid “only” if it was

reasonable. There was “already pressure at the UN to abolish veto rights”. And pressure

could be expected to increase “if the argument that certain vetoes were ‘unreasonable’ –

and could therefore be ignored – gained ground”.

629. The UK was “on record as saying that the veto should only be used with restraint

and in a manner consistent with the principles of the Charter”.

630. During Prime Minister’s Questions on 12 March, Mr Blair stated that the UK

would not do anything which did not have a proper legal basis.

631. In PMQs on 12 March Mr Blair focused on efforts to secure a second resolution

and the importance for the UN of being seen to act in response to Saddam Hussein’s

failure to co-operate as required by resolution 1441 and of achieving unity in the

international community.251

632. Mr Charles Kennedy, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, asked if the Attorney

General had advised that a war in Iraq would be legal in the absence of a second

resolution authorising force; Mr Richard Shepherd (Conservative) asked why a UN

resolution was required; and Mr John Randall (Conservative) asked if Mr Blair would

publish the legal advice.

633. In response, the points made by Mr Blair included:

• As he had “said on many occasions … we … would not do anything that did

not have a proper legal basis”.

• Resolution 1441 provided the legal basis and the second resolution was “highly

desirable to demonstrate the will of the international community”.

• It was not the convention to publish legal advice but it was “the convention to

state clearly that we have a legal base for whatever action we take, and … we

must have such a base”.

250 Letter Owen to Manning, 11 March 2003, ‘Iraq: Security Council: Use of vetoes’.

251 House of Commons, Official Report, 12 March 2003, columns 280-290.

115