Howard could end up in court for backing U.S.-led war on Iraq, say Australian barristers

SYDNEY, February 26 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – A U.S.-led military aggression on Iraq would be a violation of international law that could end in the world court, 43 Australian legal experts warned Wednesday, February 26.

In an article published by the Sydney Morning Herald, the group of leading barristers and academic lawyers stressed the so-called "coalition of the willing" talked about by U.S. President George Bush, including Australia, had not yet presented any persuasive arguments that an invasion of Iraq could be justified by international law.

Iraq would now be justified in launching a pre-emptive attack against the United States and its coalition partners because it is Iraq that is now facing a direct threat, according to the experts.

The group, which includes a former High Court judge, senior counsel and international law professors from Australia's top universities says international law recognizes two bases for the use of force.

The first, enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allows force to be used in self-defense only if the attack was actual or imminent.

"The second basis is when the U.N. Security Council authorizes the use of force as a collective response to the use or threat of force."

But the group says the Security Council is bound by the terms of the U.N. Charter and can authorize the use of force under charter seven only if there is evidence of an actual threat which could not be averted by other means such as negotiation and further weapons inspection.

"Ironically, the same principle would justify Iraq now launching pre-emptive attacks on members of the coalition because it could validly argue that it feared attack," said the experts.

The group said even if the use of force against Iraq could be justified, the Geneva Convention significantly limits the means and method.

These include prohibitions on targeting civilian populations or civilian infrastructure and causing extensive destruction of property not justified by military objectives.

Intentionally launching an attack knowing it would cause "incidental" civilian casualties and which would be clearly excessive in relation to the expected military outcome "constitutes a war crime."

"The military objective of disarming Iraq could not justify widespread harm to the Iraqi population, over half of whom are under the age of 15," stressed the legal experts.

They said the creation of the International Criminal Court last year had provided a stronger system of scrutiny and adjudication of violations of humanitarian law.

The court now has jurisdiction over war crimes and attributes criminal responsibility to individuals responsible for planning military action that violates international humanitarian law and those who carry it out.

"It specifically extends criminal law to heads of state, leaders of government, parliamentarians, government officials and military personnel," the group said.

"Respect for international law must be the first concern of the Australian government if it seeks to punish the Iraqi government for not respecting international law."

Publication of the article follows Australian Prime Minister John Howard's strong support Tuesday, February 25, for the U.S.-British draft resolution that could provide a trigger for war on Iraq within two weeks.

Australia and Britain are the only two countries to have committed forces to a possible war against Iraq, although Howard maintains no decision has yet been made to commit Australian troops to fighting.

On Wednesday, February 5, Howard suffered a historic defeat in an unprecedented no-confidence vote by Australia's Senate over his handling of the Iraq crisis.

The Labor opposition, left wing Greens, Democrats and Independent senators used their upper house majority to pass the motion by 34 votes to 31, following an emotional, 11-hour debate over the looming war.

It was the first time in the 102 year history of the Australian parliament that the upper house has censured a serving prime minister with a vote of no confidence.

Howard's conservative Liberal-National government was also censured in the motion, which condemned its decision to deploy troops to the Gulf without reference to parliament and contrary to public opinion.

Sydney and other major Australian towns were theatre for biggest anti-war protests ever seen in Australia.

Up to a quarter of a million demonstrators jammed the center of Sydney Sunday, February 16, in the biggest of a series of nationwide rallies to coincide with a coordinated weekend of global protest.

The rally, organized by a coalition of left-wing activists, trade unions, church groups and pacifists, filled a city park and stretched for two kilometers (a mile and a half) around, making crowd estimates difficult.