Quem decide se uma guerra é legal?
Paresh Nath, «The Khaleej Times»
Mary Susan Littlepage, na Truthout, escreve que em 2002 Tony Blair foi alertado por membros do seu gabinete que a invasão no Iraque era ilegal. No inquérito sobre a invasão do Iraque, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, um diplomata britânico, afirmou que a invasão do Iraque foi legal mas de “legitimidade questionável” já que os EUA e o Reino Unido não tiveram o apoio da maioria dos membros da ONU e provavelmente, no caso britânico, da maioria dos britânicos.
No The Guardian, Chris Ames, pegando nas palavras de Sir Jeremy Greenstock, pergunta quem decide se uma guerra é legal:
Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s questioning of the legitimacy – as opposed to the legality – of the Iraq war raises two pretty big questions of politics and international and law. Who decides if a war is legitimate? Who decides if it’s legal? Are these just matters of opinion, to be determined ultimately by whoever has the most power, ie the US? In the case of Iraq, it’s clear that Tony Blair subcontracted the decision to George Bush in early 2002.
Appearing at the Iraq inquiry this morning, Greenstock was less overtly critical of government policy than Sir Christopher Meyer was but both seem to have come to the same conclusion – that the diplomatic process was undermined by the military timetable and the commitment that Blair had given Bush that Britain would back regime change if it came to it.
[…] On the linked but separate issues of legitimacy and legality, it is apparently all a matter of opinion. Greenstock argued that the war was of questionable legitimacy because it did not command international or domestic support. But it cannot be held illegal because Britain has not been successfully challenged. In the absence of an international supreme court, the legality of the invasion will remain a matter of opinion, with no definitive conclusion possible. Perhaps the inquiry will be the judge of that.