Did the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 provide sufficient legal basis for military action against Iraq?

"Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorizes Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area...

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwait and third country nationals wrongly detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq...

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991)..."

"United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously on 8 November 2002, was initially celebrated as reflecting a newfound sense of unity and resolve among the Council's fifteen members... But deep differences soon emerged as to whether the text of the resolution authorized UN member states to use force to uphold its provisions...

A careful perusal of Resolution 1441 reveals grounds for arguments both for and against the existence of a Security Council authorization for the use of force against Iraq in 2003 -- and this in a document that resulted from eight weeks of negotiations among governments that were working hard either to secure or deny such authorization. The failure to close off one or the other sets of arguments suggests that the ambiguities were intentional and that the potential for deep disagreement over the legal meaning of the document was consciously accepted at the time."

"...[T]he language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear and the statements made on adoption of the resolution suggest that there were differences of view within the [UN Security] Council as to the legal effect of the resolution. Arguments can be made on both sides."

"I think it is certainly true that eight out of 10 international lawyers would say that would be a violation of international law. That view would also be supported by the legal advisers of most other countries in the United Nations. On the other hand, the United States has said from the beginning that it did in fact have authorization for the use of force, based on a string of resolutions going back to the original [Gulf War] ceasefire resolution in 1991.

And certainly it was clear in November under Resolution 1441 that we were reserving the right to act without a second Security Council resolution. The other members of the council were insisting that we should come back for a second vote. So this is an area in which the law is sufficiently undeveloped that I think you can reasonably agree to disagree. There’s no question, however, that many, many, many other countries-—the majority of other countries and certainly many of our European allies—-will not see a unilateral American-led attack as explicitly authorized by the Security Council."