1-2 of 2 results for subject:Iraq
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 1.32 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.003 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Iraq
- We searched for
- subject_t:Iraq OR subject_ses:11044
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
More
Cash, William (2)
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
Publisher
To ask the Solicitor General, what involvement (a) the Lord Chancellor and (b) Baroness Morgan had in preparation of the reply to the parliamentary Question tabled by the honourable Member for Stone to the Prime Minister on 11th March 2003, 401 c515-6W, 17 March 2003, on the legal basis for...
To ask the Solicitor General, what involvement (a) the Lord Chancellor and (b) Baroness Morgan had in preparation of the reply to the parliamentary Question tabled by the honourable Member for Stone to the Prime Minister on 11th March 2003, 401 c515-6W, 17 March 2003, on the legal basis for...
Asked by
William Cash
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Harman
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
24 February 2005
For answer on
1 March 2005
Answered on
1 March 2005
Mr. Cash: To ask the Solicitor-General what involvement (a) the Lord Chancellor and (b) Baroness Morgan had in
preparation of the reply to the parliamentary question tabled by the hon. Member for Stone to the Prime Minister on 11 March
2003 on the legal basis for military intervention in Iraq to which the Attorney-General referred in evidence to the Butler Inquiry
on 5 May 2004; and if she will make a statement. [218964]
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Solicitor-General where and in what buildings, the written statement made to Parliament on 17 March
2003 setting out the legal basis for the war in Iraq was prepared; and by whom. [219422]
The Solicitor-General: The Attorney-General's written answer of 17 March 2003, Official Report, column 515W, which I relayed
to the House, was drawn up in the office of the Attorney-General. Those involved were the Attorney-General and myself, two officials
in our office, three officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Christopher Greenwood QC. The draft was also discussed
with the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg. The Attorney-General was fully involved throughout the drafting process and
personally finalised and approved the answer.
No other Minister or official was involved. In particular, neither Baroness Morgan of Huyton nor Lord Falconer of Thoroton, nor any
official in the Prime Minister's office had any involvement whatever in the drafting of the answer. The Attorney-General has never
said that they did so. As the Attorney-General has always made clear, he set out in the answer his own genuinely held, independent
view that military action was lawful under the existing Security Council resolutions.
Subjects
Armed conflict; Attorney General; Iraq; Legal opinion; Written questions; Iraq conflict; Falconer of Thoroton, Lord; Morgan of Drefelin, Baroness
Date
1 March 2005
Reference
218964; 431 c1074-5W;431 c1070-1W
House
House of Commons
(Pursuant to his reply 14 March 2003, c482W) To ask the Prime Minister, if he will make a statement on the legal basis for military intervention against Iraq. (Dep 03/825).
(Pursuant to his reply 14 March 2003, c482W) To ask the Prime Minister, if he will make a statement on the legal basis for military intervention against Iraq. (Dep 03/825).
Asked by
William Cash
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Harman
(Labour)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
11 March 2003
For answer on
17 March 2003
Answered on
17 March 2003
Mr. Cash: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the legal basis for military intervention against Iraq.
[102902]
The Solicitor-General: [pursuant to the Prime Minister's answer, 14 March 2003, c. 482W]: The Attorney-General has given a written
answer to a question from Baroness Ramsey in the House of Lords today in the following terms:
Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were
adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace
and security: 1. In resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace
and security in the area. 2. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security
Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace
and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678. 3. A
material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678. 4. In resolution 1441 the Security
Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its
obligations to disarm under that resolution. 5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply
with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not. 6. The Security Council also decided
in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441,
that would constitute a further material breach. 7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time
of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach. 8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and
so continues today. 9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction
force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security
Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.
I have lodged a copy of this answer, together with resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 in the Library of both Houses.
Subjects
Armed conflict; Chemical weapons; Biological weapons; Inspections; Iraq; International law; Nuclear weapons; Weapons; UN resolutions; Iraq conflict
Date
17 March 2003
Reference
102902; 401 c515-6W
House
House of Commons