Further freedom of information requests on the legal advice sought by the government from Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General, provide little alteration to the picture that we understand of the run-up to the war. The exceptional requests, agreed on the grounds of public interest, show the factors that led Goldsmith to argue on the legality of the war, without the requirement of a second UN resolution.
As it became clear that a second resolution was unlikely to be
forthcoming, the attorney general "continued to reflect on the legal
arguments", today's statement said.
In the following days the chief of the defence staff requested a "clear indication of the legal position" while the treasury solicitor, as head of the government legal service, asked Lord Goldsmith for a "clear statement as to the lawfulness of military action".
The statement continued: "The attorney general recognised therefore that he needed to indicate his clear view as to whether military action would be lawful and that the government would need to set out its position publicly."
On March 13, Lord Goldsmith told his legal secretary that, "after further reflection, having particular regard to the negotiating history of resolution 1441 and his discussions with Sir Jeremy Greenstock [the UK's ambassador to the UN at the time] and the representatives of the US administration, he had reached the clear conclusion that the better view was that there was a lawful basis for the use of force without a second resolution".
These alterations in legal advice were directly related to the "negotiating history of resolution 1441". In hindsight, the failure of this resolution was partially due to the political objectives of France and Russia. Their actions in the Security Council formed an unspoken legitimation for the Attorney General to support the war, raising wider questions about how political developments intersect with legal arguments for state action.