Er...
Since PP referred to illegal 'wars' -
Intervention in Afghanistan - covered by various UN Security Council Resolutions, particularly Numbers 1368 and 1373 which stated that the Taliban's support for terrorism represented a clear threat to international peace and security; that the acts of 11 Sep 01 were covered by the inherent right to self defence, and which stated that such a threat should be combated by 'all means' (UN-speak for you may start breaking stuff if you feel it necessary). Afghanistan, whatever the Manchester University 'right on' mob (probably about 0.1% of the student body) think, meets all the criteria they claim were breached when OIF/Telic kicked off.
Therefore, using the generally accepted measure of legality - Afghanistan has been legal from the start, whatever the Manchester Student Union says about it.
The invasion of Iraq, of course, is open to question (to put it mildly).
However, the occupation of the country was retrospectively recognised by UNSCR 1483, which called upon the 'Authority' (determined in the Resolution to be the US and UK as the occupying powers who had formally recognised their responsibilities as such under the Geneva Convention) to undertake the rebuilding of Iraq and appointed a Special Representative.
Therefore, while the students might, in the eyes of some, have been on solid ground to call the combat operations between Day 1 of OIF/TELIC and 22 May 2003 an 'illegal war', they cannot call the occupation of Iraq an 'illegal war' or an 'illegal occupation', since it, like the intervention in Afghanistan, is covered by a procedurally correct vote in the UNSC.
However, I'm sure they won't let facts get in the way of their attempt to carve out a political niche for themselves.
