Wow, we have advanced not one jot from the Blair years. The ludicrous strained interpretations of UN security council resolutions to justify war are a precise throwback to early 2003. Not only is bombing the pro-Gadaffi population of Sirte ahead of the rebel advance apparently necessary to “protect the civilian population”. We now have language so tortured as to become meaningless as Hague tries to claim that Security Council Resolution 1970 imposing an arms embargo, is overridden by a patently non-existent provision in SCR 1973 amending it:
Our reading of those resolutions is that the arms embargo applies to the whole of Libya – that it might allow equipment to be given to people purely to defend themselves in certain circumstances in a limited way.
The first phrase is self evidently true from the Resolution. Plainly, if the first phrase is true, the second phrase cannot be true. Indeed it isn’t true – it is a blatant lie by Hague to justify arming the rebels in direct defiance of the UN Security Council.
The negotiating history of a Security Council Resolution is acknowledged by all international authorities as an important factor in interpretation. Lord Goldsmith has testified that ...