Global Policy Forum

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament today urged the High Court to intervene before it was "too late" to prevent the UK going to war against Iraq without a fresh United Nations resolution.

Rabinder Singh QC, for CND, told three senior judges in London that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 set out Saddam Hussein's disarmament obligations, but did not authorise the use of armed force if it was breached.

Mr Singh, a colleague of Tony Blair's wife Cherie Booth QC at Matrix Chambers, was seeking permission to apply for judicial review against the Prime Minister as well as Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary, and Geoff Hoon, Defence Secretary.

Mr Singh asked Lord Justice Simon Brown, sitting with Mr Justice Maurice Kay and Mr Justice Richards, to rule that CND had an arguable case.

He urged the judges to reject the Government's claim that the court had no power to hear the challenge, that CND lacked standing to bring the case, and that the application was "premature".

Mr Singh said: "If there is a war against Iraq without a fresh resolution and it subsequently turns out that in law there should have been one, it will literally be too late."

There was a "general principle of international law" prohibiting force unless it was in self-defence or specifically authorised by the Security Council. Neither of those exceptions to the principle applied, he said.

The hearing marked the first time a government has been challenged in the courts over the possibility of a declaration of war.

Two of the judges ruled last week that the exceptional nature of the case justified their making an order that, if CND loses, it would only have to find a maximum of £25,000 in costs.

The judges said that they found the arguments for making the order "compelling" as it was no doubt an exceptional case brought in the public interest and that CND had only limited means to meet the legal costs.

Outside court, veteran Labour MP Tony Benn, a long-time peace campaigner, said: "This has to be done because a world without international law would be back to the jungle - we simply can't allow that to happen."

He added: "If there is a victory in this one it would really change the course of British politics."

A Government witness statement "appears to regard international law as merely diplomacy by another means", said Mr Singh. "We say that international law is just that - law.

"If the executive gets the law wrong, we submit that the court can put it right. That is what the rule of law means."

Meanwhile Germany's ruling coalition partners appeared at odds again today over how Berlin should respond in the event of a US-led attack on Iraq without a UN mandate.

Angelika Beer, one of two newly-elected leaders of the Greens, insisted that Berlin should refuse all help without a mandate for military action from the UN Security Council.

Beer said that the position was clear -- no mandate, no support.

"We will not take part in an unconstitutional attack in any coalition with other Nato partners," she told Deutschlandfunk radio.

It was a stance immediately rejected by Olaf Scholz, a leading official in Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democrat party, while a government spokesman refused comment, saying it was a "hypothetical" question.

Heir Schroeder has said that Germany would grant US and allied forces overflight rights and use of bases, but has deliberately not specified whether it would also be the case if there were no UN mandate.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.