On 12 September 2002 President Bush spoke to the UN General Assembly, and said that “my nation will work with the UN Security Council to meet our common challenge” in respect of Iraq. However, he also indicated that this willingness to engage in multilateralism was a means, not an alternative, to enforcing the established will of the international community for Iraqi compliance.
President Bush made the following comment following the adoption of the Resolution [1441]:
"The United States has agreed to discuss any material breach with the Security Council, but without jeopardizing our freedom of action to defend our country."
A Resolution authorising a specific use of force in an explicit manner might have the advantage of indicating widespread international agreement, and it would provide a watertight legal basis, but the absence of such would not imply that any use of force would be unlawful. Future Iraqi behaviour, or discoveries about its activities, might bring other possibilities into view. States enjoy a right of self-defence, and the US and British Governments have mentioned this in the context of Iraq. Resolution 1441 makes specific reference to Iraq’s breaches of the ceasefire in respect of its weapons of mass destruction, and this could be relevant to a claim of self-defence.
Mr Straw [Foreign Secretary Англии] said, in response to questions on his statement on the draft Resolution,
"I do not want to anticipate what will happen if there is a breach, except to say that although we would much prefer decisions to be taken within the Security Council, we have always made it clear that within international law we have to reserve our right to take military action, if that is required, within the existing charter and the existing body of UN Security Council resolutions if, for example, a subsequent resolution were to be vetoed."
Mr Straw drew attention to the range of possible situations that might arise:
"the Security Council resolutions form part of international law but not the total corpus, and whether military action is justified in international law, with or without a second resolution, depends on the circumstances." (HC Deb 7.11.2002)
Secretary of State Colin Powell said on 10 November that:
"The United States believes because of past material breaches, current material breaches and new material breaches there is more than enough authority for it to act. [...] I can assure you if he [Saddam Hussein] doesn’t comply this time we are gong to ask the UN to give authorisation for all necessary means, and it the UN isn’t willing to do that, the United States with like-minded nations will go and disarm him forcefully." (Daily Telegraph, 11.11.2002)
On 12 September 2002 President Bush spoke to the UN General Assembly, and said that “my nation will work with the UN Security Council to meet our common challenge” in respect of Iraq. However, he also indicated that this willingness to engage in multilateralism was a means, not an alternative, to enforcing the established will of the international community for Iraqi compliance.
President Bush made the following comment following the adoption of the Resolution [1441]:
"The United States has agreed to discuss any material breach with the Security Council, but without jeopardizing our freedom of action to defend our country."
(Remarks by the President on the United Nations Security Council Resolution, Office of the Press
Secretary, 8 November 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/print/20021108-
1.html)
A Resolution authorising a specific use of force in an explicit manner might have the advantage of indicating widespread international agreement, and it would provide a watertight legal basis, but the absence of such would not imply that any use of force would be unlawful. Future Iraqi behaviour, or discoveries about its activities, might bring other possibilities into view. States enjoy a right of self-defence, and the US and British Governments have mentioned this in the context of Iraq. Resolution 1441 makes specific reference to Iraq’s breaches of the ceasefire in respect of its weapons of mass destruction, and this could be relevant to a claim of self-defence.
Mr Straw [Foreign Secretary Англии] said, in response to questions on his statement on the draft Resolution,
"I do not want to anticipate what will happen if there is a breach, except to say that although we would much prefer decisions to be taken within the Security Council, we have always made it clear that within international law we have to reserve our right to take military action, if that is required, within the existing charter and the existing body of UN Security Council resolutions if, for example, a subsequent resolution were to be vetoed."
Mr Straw drew attention to the range of possible situations that might arise:
"the Security Council resolutions form part of international law but not the total corpus, and whether military action is justified in international law, with or without a second resolution, depends on the circumstances." (HC Deb 7.11.2002)
Secretary of State Colin Powell said on 10 November that:
"The United States believes because of past material breaches, current material breaches and new material breaches there is more than enough authority for it to act. [...] I can assure you if he [Saddam Hussein] doesn’t comply this time we are gong to ask the UN to give authorisation for all necessary means, and it the UN isn’t willing to do that, the United States with like-minded nations will go and disarm him forcefully." (Daily Telegraph, 11.11.2002)
Reply
Leave a comment