Goldsmith's shift on Iraq war

27 January 2010 by Hermione Gee

Britain’s former top lawyer admitted today that he “changed his mind” about the legality of the 2003 Iraq war.

As late as March 7th, 2003, former attorney general Peter Goldsmith cautioned then British prime minister Tony Blair that, without a second United Nations resolution, the legality of the war was questionable. But by March 13th, two days after a meeting with Blair and his team, Lord Goldsmith had decided this second resolution was no longer necessary.

Goldsmith was giving evidence at the British Iraq War inquiry, headed by Sir John Chilcot. The public inquiry, which began hearings in July last year, is in the process of reviewing the legal basis for the war.

Earlier this month, a Dutch commission of inquiry into the war found that the 2003 invasion violated international law. The commission also slammed Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, saying he had allowed Britain to “help” establish a legal pretext for the Netherlands’ support of the war against former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Want to read more?

We have tailor-made memberships for students, individuals, groups of professionals and large companies and organizations. A subscription entitles you to receive the International Justice Tribune every two weeks as well as become a member of the Justice Tribune Foundation, supporting independent reporting on international justice.

Subscribe now

Related articles

blog
ICC premises (Photo: Flickr/ICC-CPI)
12 September 2017 by Tjitske Lingsma, The Hague (The Netherlands)

Several African governments complain that the ICC has been targeting Africans. But national authorities are by no means powerless when it comes to the court. Here are fifteen – successful - strategies that governments and allies have been using to keep the ICC off their backs.

article
A Syrian refugee walks among severely damaged buildings in downtown Homs, Syria, on June 3, 2014. (Photo: Flickr/Xinhua/Pan Chaoyue)
09 March 2017 by Stephanie van den Berg, The Hague (The Netherlands)

International law experts, officials and NGO’s met in The Hague Thursday to help set up an new United Nations body to gather evidence of war crimes in Syria to ensure possible prosecution at a later date. 

The new body called the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) for Syria is “to serve as a hub for gathering evidence for all crimes in Syria”, said Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders who hosted the meeting of over 150 professionals.

article
20 November 2006 by Adele Waugaman

The United Kingdom, one of the earliest and strongest advocates of the International Criminal Court (ICC), has been challenged continuously by the task of balancing its principled support for international justice with practical policy decisions. At home, London has rethought how to legally address criminal acts committed by its soldiers in Iraq; on the UN Security Council, it has sought to broker compromise between its ICC support and the formal opposition of its closest ally, the United States; and in The Hague, it has established a close yet critical relationship with an institution it played a key role in creating. In its response to the challenges presented in each of these settings, London has demonstrated confident realism in its principled yet pragmatic support for the ICC.

article
09 December 2009 by Frank Petit

In 2005 Colombia introduced the Justice and Peace Law (JPL) in an effort to combat the problem of paramilitary groups rampant in the country. The law offers fighters lenient penalties for human rights abuses in return for voluntary demobilisation. Michael Reed-Hurtado is Head of Office at the International Center for Transitional Justice in Colombia. He spoke to the IJT’s Frank Petit about how the law is working.

article
01 December 2010 by Michael E. Hartmann and Agnieszka Klonowiecka-Milart

Transitional Justice has not yet come to Afghanistan, notwithstanding the legacy of three eras of conflict: the communist/Soviet rule (1978–1992), rule of the mujaheddin (1992–1996), and the Taliban regime (1996–2001). This is due mainly to a lack of Constitutional authorisation and statutory tools, exacerbated by the 2010 Amnesty Law and an absence of political will.