Lawyers debate the rights and wrongs of sabre-rattling

VICTORIA MACCALLUM EXPLORES THE STRENGTH OF THE LEGAL CASE FOR LAUNCHING MILITARY ACTION

Although the drums of war are beating loud and clear in Whitehall, they risk being drowned out by the rumblings of discontent across the country.

From Ravers Against the War to the Eton Socialist Party, the number and range of pressure groups lending their voices to the anti-war movement is impressive.

One of the biggest issues for the protesters is what they see as the illegality of the proposed war on Iraq: their belief that if military action is launched without a second United Nations (UN) resolution - or, in the opinion of some, even with a second resolution - the UK and the US will be breaking international law.

As a result, the legal profession has had a high profile in the forums, discussions and debates of the past few months, with no rally or round-table complete without a legal opinion.

At the start of this month, a cabal of international law professors wrote to The Guardian, declaring: 'On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq.'

The 15 academics concluded that a decision to wage war in Iraq without UN authorisation would 'seriously undermine the international rule of law'.

Renowned human rights lawyer Louise Christian, partner at London-based Christian Khan, was an early legal adviser to the Stop the War movement and is one of the loudest voices in the anti-war camp.

'In international law, war can only be declared for reasons of self-defence, to avert a serious humanitarian crisis or if there is a specific UN mandate for peacekeeping purposes,' she says.

'I am increasingly certain that none of these criteria has been met - Iraq is not a threat to our country, and at the moment there is no serious humanitarian crisis.'

Even if a second UN resolution were passed, Ms Christian claims, it would make no difference and would in fact compromise the authority of the UN.

'A second resolution is not enough to compensate for the fact that the criteria for war have not been met, and it would just be a cover,' she says.

'If international law is to mean anything, it cannot be manipulated by powerful countries who want to wage war for reasons of their own.'

Although this opinion is one held by many lawyers, left-wing or not, voices have been heard offering legal justification for military action.

The Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, has spent hours locked in discussions with the prime minister this week, and barrister and Labour MP Ross Cranston, the former Solicitor-General, holds the view that there is a legal case for war.

'The letter in The Guardian is wrong to suggest that the use of force can never be legitimate unless it is in self-defence or expressly authorised by the Security Council,' he said in Parliament last week.

As examples of conflicts which have taken place without prior UN approval, he mentioned the 1998 Kosovo conflict, where humanitarian needs were used as justification for conflict, and in 1990 when the Economic Community of West African States intervened in Liberia to prevent a civil war.

'Although there was no explicit Security Council authorisation, subsequent actions by the UN tacitly accepted and praised the intervention.'

He stressed that war is a 'failure and a terrible thing', but maintains that from a legal perspective, there is no 'absolute necessity for a second resolution', and - perhaps more importantly - from a moral perspective.

Mr Cranston repeated Labour's Second World War leader, Clement Attlee, saying: 'In the light of what is happening in the world, the party cannot wash its hands of its responsibilities.'