A critical review of Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War

Abstract

In the absence of any specific authorisation by the UN Security Council, there was no law at the time of the Iraq War of 2003, whether international or UK, holding an individual criminally accountable for aggression. No inquest into the lawfulness of a war in the analogy of Coroner＇s inquest was known. The Iraq War may be better seen to be similar to a case of misuse of police powers. In this context, Sir John＇s modern Thucydidean fact-finding probe was a good practical step toward ensuring the disclosure of evidence and making a critical account of the relevant decision-making process, not only to the UK tax-payers, but also to the international community. Lessons include that there was a breach of duty to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry before resorting to war and that the breach was induced partly by fear arising from the UK＇s past arming of Iraq.