---

My most serious criticism of Professor Kirgis' comments is his misstatement, in the first full paragraph on page 2 of his "ASIL Insight", of the argument that would be used by those who believe that no further UN Security Council action is necessary for the U.S. to use force against Iraq following its material breach of its agreement in response to Resolution 687.  The argument that would be used is that with Iraq's reneging on its commitments with respect to weapons of mass destruction, the threat to peace and security remains and, therefore, one of the goals of Resolution 678 -- the restoration of international peace and security -- has not been accomplished.  As a result, member states are still authorized to use force under Resolution 678.  Furthermore, Professor Kirgis fails to note that the declaration in Resolution 687 of a cease-fire being in effect was clearly based upon Iraq's acceptance of the terms of that Resolution (no matter how grudging that acceptance). 

About the author: 
Edwin D. Williamson was  Legal Adviser to the State Department at the time Resolutions 678 and 687 were adopted.  He is currently a partner of  Sullivan & Cromwell in Washington, D.C.