Difference between revisions of "Document:Wilmshurst Resignation Letter"
m (correct subjects) |
m (Text replacement - "conscience" to "conscience") |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{Document |
| − | | | + | |title=Wilmshurst Resignation Letter |
| − | | | + | |publication_date=2002/03/18 |
| − | | | + | |type=letter |
| − | | | + | |description=Letter of resignation from her position as a UK Foreign Office legal adviser over the issue of the legality of military action against Iraq in the absence of a specific UNSC resolution authorising it |
| − | | | + | |leaked=No |
| − | | | + | |draft=No |
| − | | | + | |collection=No |
| − | | | + | |authors=Elizabeth Wilmshurst |
| − | | | + | |subjects=2003 Invasion of Iraq, Downing Street Memo |
| − | | | + | |source_name=BBC |
|AuthorDetail=deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office | |AuthorDetail=deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office | ||
| − | | | + | |source_URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4377605.stm |
| − | | | + | |note=This letter shows that Elizabeth Wilmshurst resigned because she did not believe the war with Iraq was legal. Her letter was released by the Foreign Office to the BBC under the [[Freedom of Information Act]]. |
The bold section was removed by the Foreign Office but later obtained by Channel 4 News. | The bold section was removed by the Foreign Office but later obtained by Channel 4 News. | ||
| − | | | + | |declassified=No |
| − | | | + | |recipients=Michael Wood, Alan Charlton, Andrew Patrick |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
| − | 1. I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution to revive the authorisation given in SCR 678. I do not need to set out my reasoning; you are aware of it. | + | 1. I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against [[Iraq]] without a second [[Security Council]] resolution to revive the authorisation given in SCR 678. I do not need to set out my reasoning; you are aware of it. |
'''My views accord with the advice that has been given consistently in this office before and after the adoption of UN security council resolution 1441 and with what the attorney general gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7 March. (The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line.)''' | '''My views accord with the advice that has been given consistently in this office before and after the adoption of UN security council resolution 1441 and with what the attorney general gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7 March. (The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line.)''' | ||
| − | I cannot in conscience go along with advice - within the Office or to the public or Parliament - which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a resolution, particularly since an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances which are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law. | + | I cannot in [[conscience]] go along with advice - within the Office or to the public or Parliament - which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a resolution, particularly since an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances which are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law. |
2. I therefore need to leave the Office: my views on the legitimacy of the action in Iraq would not make it possible for me to continue my role as a Deputy Legal Adviser or my work more generally. | 2. I therefore need to leave the Office: my views on the legitimacy of the action in Iraq would not make it possible for me to continue my role as a Deputy Legal Adviser or my work more generally. | ||
| − | For example in the context of the International Criminal Court, negotiations on the crime of aggression begin again this year. | + | For example in the context of the [[International Criminal Court]], negotiations on the crime of aggression begin again this year. |
I am therefore discussing with Alan Charlton whether I may take approved early retirement. In case that is not possible this letter should be taken as constituting notice of my resignation. | I am therefore discussing with Alan Charlton whether I may take approved early retirement. In case that is not possible this letter should be taken as constituting notice of my resignation. | ||
| − | 3. I joined the Office in 1974. It has been a privilege to work here. I leave with very great sadness. | + | 3. I joined the Office in 1974. It has been a privilege to work here. I leave with very great sadness. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 16:56, 15 March 2017
| Letter of resignation from her position as a UK Foreign Office legal adviser over the issue of the legality of military action against Iraq in the absence of a specific UNSC resolution authorising it |
letter by Elizabeth Wilmshurst to Michael Wood, Alan Charlton, Andrew Patrick dated 2002/03/18Subjects: 2003 Invasion of Iraq, Downing Street Memo
Source: BBC (Link)
This letter shows that Elizabeth Wilmshurst resigned because she did not believe the war with Iraq was legal. Her letter was released by the Foreign Office to the BBC under the Freedom of Information Act. The bold section was removed by the Foreign Office but later obtained by Channel 4 News.
★ Start a Discussion about this document
Wilmshurst Resignation Letter
1. I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution to revive the authorisation given in SCR 678. I do not need to set out my reasoning; you are aware of it.
My views accord with the advice that has been given consistently in this office before and after the adoption of UN security council resolution 1441 and with what the attorney general gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7 March. (The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line.)
I cannot in conscience go along with advice - within the Office or to the public or Parliament - which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a resolution, particularly since an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances which are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law.
2. I therefore need to leave the Office: my views on the legitimacy of the action in Iraq would not make it possible for me to continue my role as a Deputy Legal Adviser or my work more generally.
For example in the context of the International Criminal Court, negotiations on the crime of aggression begin again this year.
I am therefore discussing with Alan Charlton whether I may take approved early retirement. In case that is not possible this letter should be taken as constituting notice of my resignation.
3. I joined the Office in 1974. It has been a privilege to work here. I leave with very great sadness.
