Solicitors warn of damages claims if US attacks Iraq

LEGAL BASIS: resolution 678 does not stretch in scope or in time

The US will suffer enormous political fall-out and could face a flood of damages actions from the Middle East if it attacks Iraq in breach of international law, English legal experts said this week.

The warnings come following US reports that White House legal advisers have told President George W Bush that he could attack Iraq without consulting Congress in advance.

However, UK lawyers are sceptical of this.

Malcolm Forster, joint head of public international law at City firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, said there was 'tolerable' justification for an attack in UN resolution 678 - passed to relieve Kuwait from Iraqi occupation in 1990.

But he said: 'I don't think that when the Security Council passed 678 it had this attack in mind, or any such similar attempt to inspire regime change.'

Jeremy Carver, head of international law at Clifford Chance, said: 'I've always had difficulty with the extension of the authority of resolution 678 inside of Iraq.'

Mr Forster said such sweeping presidential powers - acting without prior consent of Congress - had been curtailed following military insurgency in Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam war.

Mr Carver added that the White House lawyers seem to believe that Congressional approval obtained in 1990 to cover resolution 678 would cover any renewed hostilities against Iraq.

But he said: 'I don't think that it stretches either in scope or in time.'

He noted that in the US at the moment, there is a 'feeding frenzy of claims' against Saudi banks and companies alleged to have funded al-Qaeda operatives; this situation could be reversed if the US attacks in breach of international law, with victims filing claims against the US.

Mr Forster said: 'There would be enormous political damage to the US if it acted contrary to international law.'

Philippe Ruttley, head of international law at City firm Clyde & Co said: 'I'd be surprised if the constitution allowed the president to take such military action unilaterally, without consulting Congress.'

Jeremy Fleming