Law and opinion on Iraq

Front page in yesterday's Guardian was the report of Lord Bingham's speech to the effect that the invasion of Iraq had not been lawful. Given his seniority, it is perhaps no surprise that this should be treated by the newspaper as major news, but of course another way of looking at the same thing would be to say that here is just one more figure declaring against the legality of the war, when, as is well known, there is legal opinion to the contrary. Lord Goldsmith has said in response:

[A]t the time and since then many nations other than ours took part in the action and did so believing that they were acting lawfully.

Lord Bingham's view does not in fact determine that the Iraq war was illegal; it simply adds to the existing volume of opinion that it was. The Guardian has followed up today with an editorial calling for a full public inquiry 'into the lessons of the Iraq war'. But, whatever there may be to be said for this in other respects, a public inquiry would no more be able to determine whether the war was lawful or not than Lord Bingham is. At best, it could give a further opinion. The Guardian, doubtless, would be happy to have what it would regard as confirmation of the view it favours. But, now, suppose that the verdict of a public inquiry were either an open one on this question - declaring the issue controversial and hard to resolve definitively - or in tune with Lord Goldsmith. Do you imagine, for a moment, that the Guardian, or anti-war opinion more generally, would be placated? Pull the other one. The judgement of the inquiry would be faulted.

Unless and until there is some formal determination on the legality of the Iraq war, editorial and media comment on the issue will remain merely a partisan exercise, without any authoritative weight.