Would an attack on Iran be legal? / BBC News analysis

[TexasLawyer]

An excellent, lengthy look at the legality (or lack thereof) of attacking Iran. Why isn't our own US press engaging in this kind of analysis? Jack Straw believes that an attack on Iran would be illegal. So was that why he was shit-canned?

Last Updated: Tuesday, 9 May 2006, 12:02 GMT 13:02 UK

Would an attack on Iran be legal?
By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs Correspondent, BBC News website

As diplomatic attempts continue in the UN Security Council to get Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment activities, the question has been raised about an American attack on Iran and whether it would be legal under international law.



<snip>
The question of imminence

Elizabeth Wilmshurst, senior fellow in international law at the British think tank Chatham House, who resigned as a legal adviser to the Foreign Office because she felt the invasion of Iraq was illegal, told the BBC News website: "There is currently no basis for an American attack on Iran under Article 51. There certainly is not a case for self-defence at the moment.

"You do not have to wait for an attack but the threat has to be real and imminent." She did not think the conditions for a self-defence argument existed. "Does enrichment of uranium count as a threat?" she asked. "It has not been weaponised. Is there a threat?" Nor did she accept that the US could enforce a Chapter Seven resolution by itself. "This requires a further resolution authorising force and is a settled view," she said.

That an attack is illegal is also a view shared by former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. He told reporters the other day that an Article 51 action could not be justified. The new Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, has not gone that far, saying only that nobody had any "intention" of attacking Iran.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has pointedly refused to say that an attack is "inconceivable", a word used by Mr Straw, but whether this is a tactical use of language to rattle Iran or whether it foretells potential British support for an attack is not clear.

Ms Wilmshurst accepted that Israel might regard itself as threatened, given the remarks made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But she added: "Israel would have to take an objective, realistic view as to whether there was a real threat, and I am doubtful at the moment."

<snip>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4754009.stm

[SoftUnderbelly]

1. international law

im sick to death of people arguing whether something is or isn't against 'international law'. there's no such thing! who the fuck is going to tell the USA they cant do something? international law is a joke, no one can base a serious argument on it. the question should be: is it morally right to attack iran?

'international law' shouldnt be used as an argument because it doesnt mean anything.

[magellan]

2. Well, not since Bush** took office anyway

No law means anything since Bush** took office.

[SoftUnderbelly]

4. perhaps

the argument about domestic laws i am not too familiar with (what with being british and having enough trouble keeping up with all the shit blair is doing, just not enouhg time for bush's massacring of the constitution) all im saying is that international law doesnt exist. the strongest can do whatever they want. the weakest are fucked. like its always been...

[magellan]

9. Sorry, I was being egocentric to make a broader point

It's an American thang. ;)

International law does exist; unfortunately so do self-serving politicos who have succeeded (for the time being) in smearing it into irrelevance. But as far as I know, The Hague is still open for business...Whether it sees any new customers is down to collective international will.

BTW, welcome!

[TexasLawyer]

3. Hopefully the answers to those two questions

"Is it moral?" and "Is it consistent with International Law?" go hand in hand.

[SoftUnderbelly]

5. nah

i see what you are saying, but a lot of domestic laws are hardly moral. international laws have even less to do with morality. strongest wins. every time.

[KamaAina]

6. Would an attack on Iraq be legal?

essentially a unilateral one with no UN backing?

No? Then I guess we can't go in. :eyes:

[Xithras]

7. It's really up to Israel.

Ahmadinejad has made direct threats against Israel, and international law makes it clear that statements or actions by one country which threaten or undermine the security of another are legally "Acts Of War". When one nation commits a recognized Act of War against another, it is perfectly legal for the target nation to respond militarily. Israel has a legal argument to bomb Iran right now. The US, as a declared Israeli ally, can legally attack Iran as part of that "retaliation".

Under international law, the US does NOT currently have grounds to attack Iran, but Israel does. It's essentially up to them.

This would change, of course, if Ahmadinejad were ever foolish enough to make a direct threat against the US itself. If he ever said that he planned to nuke New York after his program was completed, an attack on Iran would become legal. Since no such threat has been made, there is no legal cause for action against them.

[Vincardog]

8. What about US LAW? Congress has the right and duty to declare WAR.

NOT the pResident. Tio whit The Constitution says:


Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

I believe they are falling down on the general welfare part.

[Xithras]

10. The question wasn't about US law.

If * were to send our soldiers into Iran without congressional authorization, that would be such a clearly impeachable offense that even the Rethugs wouldn't defend him. Unless Iran attacks the US, * has to ask congressional permission.

The problem is that the Thugs control congress. Unless someone on our side is willing to break out the filibuster card, I don't see how we could stop congress from just rubber stamping anything Bush sends their way.

[Vincardog]

11. we could stop congress from just rubber stamping anything Bush sends their

way in November. BTW the original question was
"Would an attack on Iran be legal?"