I spent lunch reading the UK's Attorney General's advice (pdf) to Prime Minister Tony Blair about the legality of the UK's participation in military action in Iraq (03/2003), essentially an explication of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (pdf). I love how the interpretation of laws, particularly international ones, are manifold and varied, yet still rather straightforward. Further, what's awesome about this advice is that it takes into account how UN Security Council resolutions are made: with grave and deliberate intent and scrutiny to the exact words and the potential implications thereof. The AG.uk goes into great detail on the arguments around the words and how to contextualize them to mean either 'yes, military action is authorized,' or 'no, it's not, exactly.' That last bit ('exactly') is pretty much the crux of the whole thing: military action from the rectification of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (UN SC 678 (1990) pdf) had never been unauthorized. So, with military action on the table, what's left to do?
To what extent and for how long debate was going to rage in the UN was still the actual debate. A meta debate, if you will. Yes, that's right, a debate about debate. Fait accompli as some of our European partners might say. It's this nebulous region between mutual discussion and actual Socratic philosophical meditations on Robert's Rules of Order.
Take this, for example: 1441's operative paragraph 12 (OP12) states in relation to a breach of compliance that the Security Council (SC) would convene to “consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security”
“Consider,“ not “decide“ i.e. the SC has decided to engage in further discussions should the Saddam Hussein regime be in breach. Not that they get to decide whether military action is necessary. A discussion. Proof enough? Nope. The very same language is used by opponents of the war to mean that further discussions, with an unspecified duration, are required prior to action. Quelle quandary! Both France and Russia agreed to the “consider“ wording, leaving out specific assertions and tests regarding a decision. UN Resolutions aren't made lightly. In fact, this one was accepted 15-0. That's the maximum vs. the 0.
Would the war be legal without a second (or 18th, depending on what perspectacles you don) UNSC Resolution?
Lord Goldsmith's conclusion: Dither all you want, actions would be defensible in a court. (Which court, now that's another discussion.)
On another note, fuck Denny's.