Chaffers,
You may be shocked at my 'ignorance', which you think is 'probably par for the course with regard to my profession'.
And is your razor sharp wit and incisive grasp of international relations par for the course among grubby, racist, Mancunian computer programmers, I wonder?
Perhaps this is your way of challenging me for a duel of wits, but if so I shouldn't bother, 'old chap', since I have no interest in fighting an unarmed man.
With regard to International Law there are a number of definitions, some narrow and technical, others wider and more conceptual. Thus, as an example, international trade law is strictly determined by UNCITRAL, though in the real world, rulings by the WTO implicitely have the force of international law among signatory nations.
On this basis, UN Security Council Resolutions implicitely have the force of International Law behind them. Fortunately they are also explicitely just as binding on any and all signatories of the UN charter. Handy eh?
International Law is not, you see, only restricted to rulings by the International Court, the International Court of Human Rights, or the International Law Committee, and is thus not restricted to regulations like the Draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States (1949), the Nürnberg Principles (1950) or the two Codes of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1950-something and 1960 something) though all of these have some bearing on the kind of action we've been discussing.
And it isn't restricted to these bodies because, according to Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, international law is defined as that body of legal rules and norms that regulates activities carried on outside the legal boundaries of states, and describes it as flowing from international conventions, international custom, (as evidence of a general practice accepted as law) and from those 'general principles of law recognized by civilized nations'. And the International Court of Justice rules on the applicability of these.
But what I was referring to was the UN Charter (one of the conventions referred to above and also accepted by 'custom') which certainly enjoys the force of international law.
May I draw your attention to Chapter VII, and especially Article 39 which states that: “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.” It has not so ruled on Iraq.
And before you get tiresome and point out Article 51 which states that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs”, let me point out that this does not give the USA, or anyone else, carte blanche to undertake military action on a ‘precautionary basis’. Attacking an enemy because one suspects that he might be about to do something is not acceptable, as became clear following Israel’s attack on Iraqi nuclear facilities at Osirak. Because Iraq has not made any 'armed attack'.
It is clear that unless a State has been directly attacked, it is the responsibility of the Security Council to take the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
Thus there is such a thing as International Law, and any attack on Iraq without UN say so will breach it.
Is that clear, Chaffers, 'Old Boy'?