BRITAIN: An armed strike on Iraq aimed specifically at a regime change would be unlawful, the British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, has told the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair.
Lord Goldsmith's opinion was backed by international law experts last night.
That judgment explains why Mr Blair has avoided suggesting, as the US has, that Britain's aim is to force Saddam Hussein out. Downing Street has insisted that any British action will comply with international law.
Prof Christopher Greenwood, professor of international law at the London School of Economics, said an attack on Iraq would be lawful only if it was an act of self-defence or under a UN mandate.
"Regime change wouldn't in itself and by itself be a lawful reason for attack," he said.
The attorney general is understood to have taken advice from the legal adviser to the Foreign Office, Mr Michael Wood, who is thought to have consulted outside experts in international law.
Prof Greenwood said he had not seen "any advice the attorney general has given".
Prof Malcolm Shaw, professor of international law at Leicester University, said: "Simply to go in, use force, march to Baghdad and change the regime would not be legal in international law. Beyond that, we're into self-defence and the UN."
He added: "Self-defence would cover collective self-defence, so if any neighbouring state in the region felt threatened by these weapons of mass destruction, it would be open to them to call on the US for assistance and that might lead to a regime change."
Meanwhile, Mr Blair is expected by the end of this month to order British military chiefs to prepare a significant British force for an attack on Iraq, Whitehall sources said yesterday.
They said that to be "legitimate", such an attack would not necessarily have to be supported by a UN mandate.
"If things had not moved on by the end of this month I would be very surprised," a senior Whitehall source said.
"What will be important is that what we are being told to do has legitimacy. Legitimacy can derive not just from a UN mandate. Lawful and legitimate are not necessarily the same thing. I do not detect any great concern in the army but we are not there yet."
Mr Blair is expected to instruct military commanders to provide a large British force for an invasion of Iraq. It would include heavy armour, including Challenger II battle tanks, the sources said.
The US has more than enough fire-power to invade Iraq on its own. British involvement would be entirely a "political matter", the sources said. "If you take risks but want a political benefit, then you really have to share the burden and not just be on the periphery."- (Guardian Service)