Is it legal to bomb ISIL? Really?

One of the things said about the deployment of USA, GB and others' military  hardware in Iraq is that, having been invited to do so by the Iraqi government, it is legal to do so. Presumably we are talking 'legal' according to the United Nations charter. And it is true that the charter grants member states the right to self-defence and to call on help in self-defence. Ostensibly then, yes, it's legal.

But, as I said to someone yesterday, I'm not sure that it is "fully legal". By that is my suspicion that the means and circumstances count against what is actually being proposed. See paragraph 3 of Article 2:

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles

Now, I think that this is meant to be consonant with ideas of just war in that just war theory talks about 'jus in bello', that is that the means employed in the circumstances should be likely to resolve the matter with the minimum loss of life, minimum damage etc.

It seems to me that this is an international dispute even though we are talking about non-state actors. I can't see how, once other nations are called in it can fail to be an international dispute: some of the actors are Syrian, and there are Turkish, Saudi, and gulf state interests involved. But the more important thing is not endangering international peace, security and justice. Given the likelihood that going about things in the manner proposed and given the likely next developments (see here) there is very much a danger to security, peace and justice internationally (which also makes it an international concern).

The probability that the repeat of civilian "collateral" deaths and maimings such as we have seen in Afghanistan and previously in Iraq will take place in this campaign. This injustice will further inflame those already frustrated and angry with the West's involvement in the middle east who are likely to seek to carry out violent acts in the wider world and so international security and peace will be further strained and imperilled. In short, the course of action proposed (as it is at this point -I expect it will be approved, sadly) contradicts a fundamental article of the UN, and so cannot be said to be fully legal.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think there is some doubt about the proposal on legal grounds, surely.

EVEL Conservative plan holed

This morning on the news John Redwood MP was sounding very reasonable in explaining how simple EVEL (English Votes on English Laws) was and by implication what a good idea it is: why get into lots of constitutional wrangling?

Part of the problem is, as he let slip, is that in the present electoral map, that would mean a Conservative majority in England. He didn't say it in so many words, but by pointing out that it was the Labour MPs from the rest of the UK that diluted the Conservative vote on English matters, he belied his statement that this was not a party political matter.

And there we have the problem. By creating, in effect, a part-time English parliament in Westminster, there would be an entrenchment of a particular party. Some of us in some regions of England are, in effect, relying on the non-Conservative vote from other bits of GB to help sustain 'our' case. The first-past the post system of voting can mean that Conservatives in England could ride roughshod over the rest even while not enjoying a majority of actual votes. And since most of the Conservative MPs would be from Southerly parts of England, there would grow a tension between the south and the north along the issue of fair representation. One of the ways to address that would be to recognise that an England of regions with properly devolved powers, would be fairer and more sustainable.

EVEL could only be a temporary measure, but I fear that if we grant it, the Establishment would resist further reform with the consequent unrest and growing inequality it would engender.

In my view we need a proper constitutional consultation to settle this. EVEL is not a long-term solution.