SBW wrote:
---------------------------
The political and military ramifications of a not guilty verdict are potentially massive. Because if they decide that the order wasn't legal, do we then have to withdraw all our forces from Iraq unilaterally? Certainly I cannot see how we would possibly get anyone to serve in Iraq again.
---------------------------
You've hit the nail on the head. However, as stated earlier, I think that the answers to your questions at the GCM will be as follows:
Q1. Was the Officer given an order? Yes.
Q2. Did he carry the order out? No.
Q3. Was the order legal? Yes, because UNSCR 1546 mandates the position of UK and allied forces.
Therefore, guilty as charged.
However: if these questions were asked before the passage UNSCR 1546 - ie, anytime between commencement of operations and 08 Jun 2004 - then the answers would be more difficult, because they would have to consider the international legal position in consideration of the legality of the orders.
Irrespective of the result in this case, in any future operation, this case has underlined that if the war is not legal - as we've seen, either self-defence, UN Security Council Authorisation, or humanitarian intervention to stop genocide and crimes against humanity, then I believe the orders will be to commit the crime of aggression, and therefore would be illegal.
So, we agree that everyone should always follow all legal orders: but that we're obligated to refuse illegal ones; and what this case has highlighted is a small, obscure and developing corner of international law that needs to be addressed - and soon.
S41