9.1 | March to 22 May 2003

“As a matter of law … there was a distinction between (i) the rights and

responsibilities of the United Kingdom as an Occupying Power in the area of Iraq

under the actual authority of UK armed forces and (ii) the potential liability of the

United Kingdom for acts or omissions of the CPA. This distinction was a real one,

notwithstanding that the CPA was an instrument through which the Occupying

Powers sought to exercise certain of their respective rights and responsibilities

(including as extended in due course by the Security Council).”

Sir Michael continued:

“As to (i) there was a proper concern that the UK might be regarded as being a joint

Occupying Power throughout the whole of Iraq, inter alia because of the CPA … As

to (ii), it was considered likely that, if the matter were ever tested, the CPA could

be found to be a body constituted by the US and the UK for which the two States

had a degree of joint responsibility … So far as I recall, the question whether the

CPA, despite its name, was in reality an emanation of the United States, not of ‘the

Coalition’ as such (US, UK and possibly others) was an unresolved issue throughout

its existence.”273

273 Statement, 15 March 2011, pages 21-22.

205