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.
The purpose of ASIL Insights
is to provide concise and informed background for
developments of interest to the international community.
The American Society of International Law does
not take positions on substantive issues, including
the ones discussed in this Insight.
ASIL
Insights may be found on the ASIL
Web Site.
Educational copying is permitted with due acknowledgement.
