Complete Legal Documents

Read and download copies of the full legal advice written by the Attorney General and sent to the Prime Minister.

Channel 4 News obtained a copy of the summary of the confidential legal advice written by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith and sent to the Prime Minister on March 7th, two weeks before the war with Iraq.

After our publishing our relevations on Channel 4 News Tony Blair finally published the full legal advice for war saying its 'a damp squib not a smoking gun.'

The documents reveal that Lord Goldsmith warned Mr Blair that failure to secure a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorising military action would force the government 'urgently' to reconsider its legal case.

Resolution 1441 had been passed in November 2002 and gave Iraq 'a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations'.

READ THE FULL LEGAL ADVICE

The 13 page document, as given to Prime Minister Tony Blair by the Attorney General on March 7, 2003 was published on the official website for Number 10.

Iraq Resolution 1441 - Adobe .pdf file (693kbs)

You will require Adobe Acrobat Reader to read PDF files.

Alternatively you can download and/or view copies of the summary, document - obtained by Channel 4 News on March 27, 2005 below.

Summary - Iraq legal advice -Microsoft Word file (27kb)

Summary - Iraq legal advice - Textpad file 5kb

Summary, page 1 - Scanned image (.gif)103 kb

Summary, page 2. - Scanned image (.gif) 102 kb

Summary, page 3. - Scanned image (.gif) 69 kb

HTML version: read the extract from Lord Goldsmith's summary as an HTML page.

Read and download copies of the full legal advice written by the Attorney General and sent to the Prime Minister.

Continued from previous page.

26. To sum up, the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear and the statements made on adoption of the resolution suggest that there were differences of view within the Council as to the legal effect of the resolution. Arguments can be made on both sides. A key question is whether there is in truth a need for an assessment of whether Iraq's conduct constitutes a failure to take the final opportunity or has constituted a failure fully to cooperate within the meaning of OP4 such that the basis of the cease-fire is destroyed. If an assessment is needed of that situation, it would be for the Council to make it. A narrow textual reading of the resolution suggests that sort of assessment is not needed, because the Council has predetermined the issue. Public statements, on the other hand, say otherwise.

27. In these circumstances, I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force. [...] The key point is that it should establish that the Council has concluded that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity offered by resolution 1441, as in the draft which has already been tabled.

28. Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution.

29. However, the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation. Given the structure of the resolution as a whole, the views of UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be highly significant in this respect. In the light of the latest reporting by UNMOVIC, you will need to consider very carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non- compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity.

CLICK NEXT TO READ PARAGRAPHS 30 & 31

Read and download copies of the full legal advice written by the Attorney General and sent to the Prime Minister.

Continued from previous page.

30. In reaching my conclusion, I have taken account of the fact that on a number of previous occasions, including in relation to Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 and Kosovo in 1999, UK forces have participated in military action on the basis of advice from my predecessors that the legality of the action under international law was no more than reasonably arguable. But a "reasonable case" does not mean that if the matter ever came before a court I would be confident that the court would agree with the view.

I judge that, having regard to the arguments on both sides, and considering the resolution as a whole in the light of the statements made on adoption and subsequently, a court might well conclude that OPs 4 and 12 do requ1re a further Council decision in order to revive the authorisation in resolution 678. But equally I consider that the counter view can be reasonably maintained.

However, it must be recognised that on previous occasions when military action was taken on the basis of a reasonably arguable case, the degree of public and Parliamentary scrutiny of the legal issue was nothing as great as it is today.

31. The analysis set out above applies whether a second resolution fails to be adopted because of a lack of votes or because it is vetoed. As I have said before, I do not believe that there is any basis in law for arguing that there is an implied condition of reasonableness which can be read into the power of veto conferred on the permanent members of the Security Council by the UN Charter.

So there are no grounds for arguing that an "unreasonable veto" would entitle us to proceed on the basis of a presumed Security Council authorisation. In any event, if the majority of world opinion remains opposed to military action, it is likely to be difficult on the facts to categorise a French veto as "unreasonable". The legal analysis may, however, be affected by the course of events over the next week or so, eg the discussions on the draft second resolution.

If we fail to achieve the adoption of a second resolution we would need to consider urgently at that stage the strength of our legal case in the light of circumstances at the time."

Send this article by email

Recipient's email address

Your name