How I Learned to Stop Worrying About International Law and Love Toothless Inquiries

Increasingly in recent history, it has been the case that when egregious violations of international law occur resulting in thousands of deaths, the Western world will (afterwards) act to see justice done. Prominent examples include the activities of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and, to an extent, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. But what is the proper response when it is Westerners who egregiously violate international law, resulting in thousands of deaths? If you answered “something similar”, then you are wrong. Shame on you.

No, an example of the proper response can be seen in Britain today, where an inquiry into the decisions leading up to the Iraq war, headed by Sir John Chilcot, has been underway since July. As the inquiry’s website makes clear, this is not a criminal tribunal, and it is not placing anyone on trial. Rather its purpose is to accurately establish what happened, and to identify lessons that can be learned (though have no fear: if the inquiry finds that mistakes were made, “it will say so”).

Britain’s Iraq inquiry is a nice, typical piece of theatre, with a colourful cast of characters. Those gaining the most attention include Jack Straw, Foreign Minister in 2003; Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney General; Sir Michael Wood, the Foreign Office’s most senior legal advisor; Wood’s deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst; as well as good…

Continue reading this entry ➔