However, Channel Four News understands that British forces have still to sign off on the "rules of engagement" for war because, we're told, of arguments over the lawfulness of military action.
That argument comes down to two key phrases: 'serious consequences' which many legal authorities worry is not strong enough to justify military action and "all necessary means" which is regarded as diplomatic code giving the green light to war.
An early draft of Resolution 1441 included the phrase "all necessary means" but after pressure from France and Russia that was watered down only to 'serious consequences'.
At the time, America's ambassador to the UN John Negroponte made it clear that 1441 wasn't enough to send the boys in.
Now, however, government lawyers point to Resolution number 678 which does use the magic phrase "all necessary means" in relation to Iraq.
That, however, was passed in 1990 before the last Gulf War and before the UN cease-fire arrangements.
There's another problem too. Resolution 1441 ends by saying that the UN Security Council "decides to remain seized of the matter". 'Seized' has a very specific legal meaning of possession or ownership.
In plain language the council was saying that nothing could happen until it met again.
And there is a formal process to go through before military action can be taken in the name of the UN.
Articles 46 and 47 of the United Nations Charter state that "plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee consisting of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council."
I don't think France's top General is expecting a call from Tommy Franks!
|
