In the summer of 2002 an ad-hoc group of legal experts and peace activists came together to form The Legal Inquiry Steering Group (LISG), believing that the issue should not go untried. A key component of this group was Peacerights, the Birmingham-based legal service that specifically deals with issues of international human rights and humanitarian law. It is primarily through the actions of Peacerights that this corpus of legal arguments has been developed. The ‘High Court of Justice’ in The Strand, London, refused to accept CND’s argument - presented here in Part II - by declining to express an opinion on whether it would be legal for Britain to initiate war. As a matter of International law, the judges argued it was not within their remit. Then Britain’?s Attorney-General expressed the view that three UN Security-Council resolutions taken together warranted a legal justification for the war.

These 2002 UK debates, however, synchronised with the setting up of the UN-sponsored International Criminal Court in The Hague. The ICC reaffirmed the Nuremberg Principles of 1948 concerning the personal moral responsibility of politicians and soldiers, and the concept of crimes against humanity.

However, the ICC is not presently empowered to deal with the crime of aggression, as expressed in the 6th Nuremberg Principle: a ‘Crime against Peace’ was the ‘Planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances.’ The attack upon Iraq is a clear instance of transgression of this 6th Nuremberg principle. The letters sent by Public Interest Lawyers (in Part IV) to the Prime Minister and Defence Secretary give one hope for the cognition of international-law principles by politicians in the future.

True, the war on Iraq is now over with the victor's effectively demanding that because they won, it must be legal. Nothing however could be further from the truth. A multitude of questions remain unanswered not least about Saddam's increasingly invisible weapons of mass destruction - that is, the avowed pretext for the assault in the first place. The Coalition partners, that is most specifically those who planned, organised and executed this war, cannot and must not be allowed to remain above the law, or to assume that they can act with such impunity again."

A Citizens' Legal Inquiry into the Legality of use of force against Iraq on October 11 2002 at Gray’s Inn, London. The Inquiry was chaired by Professor Colin Warbrick, professor of Law at Durham University. Rabinder Singh QC of Matrix Chambers argued the case for illegality, and Julian Knowles, also of Matrix, put the case of the UK Government. Professor Warbrick concluded that the UK’s present bombing raids into Iraq are in breach of international law, and that further armed force, in the absence of a clear UN Security Council mandate, would also be unlawful. The Legal Inquiry Steering Group raised £8,000 from ordinary activists to help pay for the Legal Inquiry.

A Legal Challenge to the Government initiated on 19 November 2002 when lawyers for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) sent a letter and Rabinder Singh QC’s Opinion to Prime Minister Tony Blair, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. This warned that they would face a legal challenge unless a written guarantee was given within 7 days that the UK would not use armed force against Iraq without a further United Nations Security Council Resolution. There was no satisfactory response and on 28 November the High Court was asked to carry out a judicial review to decide the matter. The court did not allow the case to come to trial. Brown. On 17 December Lord Justice Simon ruled that in order to decide whether war would be unlawful, the courts would have to interpret UN Resolution 1441; clearly this is not part of domestic law. Normally, he said, "English courts will not rule upon the true meaning and effect of international instruments which apply only at the level of international law." The Legal Challenge cost CND £75,000 which was raised by donations and fundraising events.

With the outbreak of hostilities against imminent the Attorney General provided a written Parliamentary answer to outline his view on the legality of military action. The following day this was contested by a letter from lawyers acting for CND.

A Shadow Judicial Review by the BBC programme "Today". This took place on 19 December at the Inner Temple, London and investigated whether British involvement in any war against Iraq, without further specific UN endorsement, would be legal under international law. The programme makers expressly acknowledged that it was directly inspired by LISG-initiated Citizens’? Legal Inquiry at Grays Inn. Professor Nicholas Grief, Head of the School of Finance & Law and Steele Raymond Professor of Law at Bournemouth University, argued that a war under these conditions would be illegal. Professor Anthony Austin, Deputy Director of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Visiting Professor of International Law at University College London, and formerly Deputy Legal Adviser of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, made the case that a strike could be legal. Professor Vaughan Lowe, Fellow of All Souls College, and a barrister practicing from Essex Court Chambers, acting as judge, was persuaded by Professor Grief’s argument and BBC listeners had a rare opportunity to hear a legal analysis of the Iraq crisis.

A War Crimes Project. The legal actions concern the legality of initiating war. With the outbreak of War a new question arose - the legality of how it was actually conducted. The principles of necessity, proportionality and humanity are enshrined in International Humanitarian Law (IHL). On 22 January 2003 Public Interest Lawyers wrote to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence informing them that their conduct of any attack on Iraq would be carefully monitored.

Now that the War is over a high quality team of international law professors will meet over the weekend of 8-9 November 2003. If the panel finds that there have been breaches of Interantional Humanitarian Law it will present a report to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on the basis that individual members of the UK Government are responsible, at the highest level, for decisions on how force was used against Iraq and its civilian population. It is not the objective of this project to prosecute Tony Blair or anybody else responsible. That is not their job. That is the job of the prosecutor in the Hague. However prosecutor will be presented with a reasoned analysis of the relevant legal principles applicable to hi-tech warfare and in the light of that analysis the best evidence we can get from eye witnesses and weapons experts as to what weapons were used, what the effects of those weapons were and, therefore, whether the weapons or methods of attack used in the war came within the definition of war crimes so that the prosecutor is duty bound to investigate.

Meanwhile:

Greek lawyers say they are going to sue British officials - including Prime Minister Tony Blair - for their role in the Iraq war. The Athens Bar Association says it will file a suit against Britain at the International Criminal Court - the recently created tribunal for cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

The lawyers call the attacks by the United States and British forces against Iraq "crimes against humanity and war crimes". They have listed a number of international treaties they say the two countries have violated. These include the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Convention and the International Criminal Court's statute.

In Belgium twenty victims of the recent war against Iraq are filing charges before the federal prosecutor of Belgium for violations of International Humanitarian Law. The complaint mentions General Tommy Franks in particular for ordering war crimes and for not preventing others from committing them or for providing protection to the perpetrators. These include: