"Chris Coverdale, the International War Law Expert"

Er, no he's not. He has no legal qualifications and doesn't understand even basic legal principles. This man has been going around telling everyone he's a legal expert and people like you seem to believe him without checking your facts. Since meeting him recently I thought I'd google him and found this article - among many - which seem to think he knows what he's talking about. He doesn't.

[...] Source. [...]

"...can be prosecuted under international law."

Probably not. The Americans would probably take his US. Ciphers away (.ie. wrapping you up in bandages & turning you into a mummy) for that Saudi proxy war. No ciphers- no corporation will pay you $$$$$ to sit on their boards.

You can always tell whether a politican is one by how much the mummy charges for services rendered - it takes $$$ to hire consultants who do have ciphers.

No, it shouldn't be the tea lady. However, the "I was only obeying Blair" brigade should be held to account too - I don't mean the military, but the politicians.

To reduce it to "Bush and Blair" ignores the companies which have profited, and the people around them who knew full well what was going on.

Ray

Does this mean that it will be the tea lady that ends up carrying the can?

Surely you accept that if you take the office, the responsibility, and the cash then you also take the responsibility.

I think it is very wrong, as the Left often has done recently, to pin the blame too much on GWB and Blair. They did not act alone, and making them scapegoats ignores the operators that surround them, particularly in the USA, where it is obvious that Dubya is intellectually challenged, but is surrounded by clever and cunning "hawks".

There are arguments that can be put forward to support the legality of the wars and these have been put forward in a number of places, including in Lord Goldsmith's opinion that is now in the public domain. It matters not, in my view, that he appears to have changed his mind, or that he adopted what may prove in the future to be a minority view - his advice was given and the claims that he was 'pressured' have been denied.

Perhaps I have overstated the absence of a legal basis for any of Coverdale's arguments; but it is the practical difficulties that will mean that there will be no prosecutions and it is his insistence that his view is bound to succeed on all of the issues he raises that gave rise to my reaction. Some of his claims do have a legal basis, but it is the practical difficulties and the marginal prospects of success that mean that, in my view, they will never get to court.

The arguments about preemptive actions are arguments that have been going on since the end of the second world war and include the arguments set out in judgments of the ICJ - some of which are simply ignored by those criticised in them.

My essential problem with Philippe's arguments over the legality of actions taken by Bush and Blair is that he assumes that 'international law' is in effect the same as the law in the UK and that countries are as bound by 'international law' as you and I are by the laws in England and Wales (or Scotland or Northern Ireland). But if we get into that we shall be here for ever and I will never get any work done ...

Do I understand Mr Price correctly? Is he saying that Blair could get off by arguing that he didn't know what the Charter of the UN says? Could he argue that no-one had told him that he needed an explicit UN resolution?

Evan, many thanks for your reply.

It looks like the best we can hope for is a change of regime in the U.S.A. and a prima facie case being made there by the new regime against the present one. Then perhaps Blair and friends might be deported to the U.S. under the treaty that Blunkett signed, where he could perhaps share a cell with the 'NatWest Three'.

In essence, I believe that the arguments are political rather than legal and that there is little chance of seeing any court of any kind determining the alleged 'illegality' of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The practical difficulty in any claim before the UK courts is that you would need to provide prima facie evidence not only that the acts were themselves illegal (something that I believe would be difficult in itself), but also that the parties accused knew that what they were doing was illegal. The standard of proof would be beyond reasonable doubt and on the basis of all that I have read and seen, the chances of there even being a prosecution before the UK courts are slim to nil.

Of course a private prosecution could be mounted. But the Attorney would have the right to intervene and take over from the private prosecutor.

My experience of contentious and political litigation (I have been involved in preparing legal argument for 2 such cases in the last 10 years) informs me that this is not going to go anywhere.

Mr Coverdale doesn't help his argument by overstating his case - for example, in relation to the claims that all taxpayers are also guilty of offences under the 2001 Act.

Evan given your comment:-

'That there are political arguments to be had over the legitimacy of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan is undoubted.'

do you feel that these arguments are just 'political' or do you think that they have any legal substance.

In view of your comments I take it that you are a lawyer.

The claims made by Chris Coverdale are fantastic and in my view, without legal foundation.

Just for starters, there is a disagreement between jurists as to whether international law permits preemptive action and war - and in the light of that disagreement, the statement by Mr Coverdale that preemptive action and war, save for defence, is illegal is not one that is unarguable.

Mr Coverdale is not himself a lawyer and, sadly, it shows. Lawyers would have filled their statements with warm words to cover the real difficulties that would need to be overcome in relation to the arguments Mr Coverdale puts forward.

That there are political arguments to be had over the legitimacy of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan is undoubted. I doubt that these arguments are in some way a reheasal of arguments to be heard in a court or courts - there is little prospect of a prosecution being mounted.

I also was wondering about the meaning of "preemption action". As I understand it, we could claim under international law that we could attack a country which was just about to attack us (or another country); this does not apply in this case.

Evan,

I agree that tactically (I'm not sure about legally and morally) Coverdale shouldn't be talking about the crimes of UK taxpayers since this allows others to easily dismiss him. I do, however, think that, we, the British public, need to face up to our complicity in the crimes in Iraq (although I think this should be in the court of our own private conscience, not in front of a judge).

But your claim that there is no legal basis for a prosecution is surely wrong. Could you point me to those independent jurists now prepared to defend the legality of the Iraq war? (I'm not denying that they exist). As Guano says, at the very least the UK and US seem to have violated the UN Charter. A useful book on this is "Lawless World" by Philipe Sands QC, Professor of International Law at UCL and member of Cherie Blair's Matrix chambers. Sands catalogues the breaches of international law committed by Blair and Bush in Iraq and the broader "war on terror", and in his mind there is no doubt: Blair is guilty of war crimes and can be prosecuted under international law.

Even if, as you say, it is not "unarguable" that preemptive war is legal, would it not have to be proven that it was a genuine preemptive war? i.e that Saddam was threatening us with aggression, which we know he wasn't.

You also say that the parties would have to have known "what they were doing was illegal", but even if ignorance of the law were an excuse, doesn't the fact the A-G changed his legal advice at the last minute without any new evidence, following what was likely pressure put on him by the PM, show that they did know it was illegal?

Although I agree there are many important obstacles to a prosecution, and powerful interests opposed, surely the case of Pinochet provides a strong precedent for judges trying such cases in UK courts.

Best

Guy