CONFLICT ON TRIAL

We are writing in response to the views of three City lawyers as reported recently (see [2001] Gazette, 25 October, 20).

Their opinion appears to be that the UK and US have a 'pretty clear-cut case' in international law for military action in Afghanistan.

We think they are wrong.First, the right of self-defence under article 51 of the United Nations charter only warrants measures that are proportional to an armed attack, and necessary to respond to it, until the Security Council has taken measures under chapter VII of the charter necessary to maintain international peace and security.

The Security Council has so far neither taken nor authorised any such collective action.

Neither the US nor the UK has even asked it to.Second, the UK may seek to rely on the dubious doctrine of 'anticipatory self-defence'.

According to customary international law, this 'must be confined to cases in which the necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.' It cannot apply in this case.Third, the International Court of Justice, the UN's court, has held that armed response in self-defence must not be unreason-able or excessive.

Civilians must never be made the object of attack, and weapons that are incapable of distinguishing civilian and military targets must never be used.

The ICJ has drawn a clear line, and the US and the UK have crossed it.Finally, the rule of law demands that the perpetrators of crime be brought to justice.

But there is no suggestion by the US or the UK that the military campaign is designed to bring suspects to trial.

Rather, its purpose is to facilitate their summary execution.Jane Deighton, Solicitor, Deighton Guedalla; Jim Nichol, Solicitor, Taylor Nichol; Gareth Peirce, Solicitor, Birnberg Peirce; Professor Bill Bowring, University of North London; Professor Nick Grief, Bournemouth University; Phil Shiner, Director, Peacerights