The Law Is Full Of Weirdos

[liadnan]

Those already aware of the odd traditions at Hammonds may be further amused to know that the story appears in Private Eye this week...

And in further quasi-legal news, Channel 4 have their hands on a copy of Goldsmith's summary opinion. I meant to be home in time for Channel 4 news because I'd guessed this was what Jon Snow was heavily hinting in today's Snowmail, but I, err, went to the pub instead.
(ETA: seems the BBC received a copy too.)

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.

No shit sherlock. If a summary of my advice in any case was "well, dunno mate, all depends, we might not win (in court)" it would be a blatant, and really rather rubbish, attempt to please my insurers on a case I thought stank to high heaven. It is also, blatantly, the opinion of counsel-who-is-being-very-heavily-lent-on-by-the-client.

...

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.

This is so lazy.

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.

Oh for crying out loud.

(Eh, what. I don't remember ever hearing that about Desert Fox and Kosovo)

ETA: A pdf of the full version is now here. Slightly more impressive reasoning than appears from the summary, but I still think it's a very dubious piece of work. Paragraphs 24 (setting out the argument that a second resolution was required), particularly 24(iii) (Any other construction reduces the role of the Council discussion under O[perative] P[aragraph] 12 [of 1441] to a procedural formality [...] I remain of the view this would be the effect.) and also 36 (on the impropriety of regime change per se as a justification) are particularly revealing though.

Thinking of legal stuff by the way, did any of you read about Giovanni di Stefano, "lawyer" to, err, Saddam Hussein and Jonathan King, personal friend of Arkan, and his somewhat dodgy credentials?

Comments

[carezza.livejournal.com]

I did pick up on that story in Private Eye. Made my day.

I read through the summary and I wouldn't have got away with handing that in as part of a second year undergraduate essay for PIL.

[carezza.livejournal.com]

Er, the Goldsmith summary, not the Private Eye article. Although a précis of the Hammonds drama would probably have been far more interesting than some of those essays I attempted to pass off as having involved time and effort.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

Agree with you about Goldsmith. Haven't seen about di Stefano - what's the story?

di Stefano

[liadnan]

He's certainly not an English lawyer. There is considerable doubt over whether he is an Italian lawyer. The Law Society have investigated his credentials and are concerned (and the Criminal Div of the CA have asked "who the hell are you" when put in grounds for appeal once). He has more than one conviction for fraud. And he considers Arkan a great friend.

Re: di Stefano

[lizw.livejournal.com]

Marvellous! He'd get on well with certain people I've been dealing with lately.