Despite that Congressional resolution, many (if not most) international legal scholars do
not agree that Security Council Resolution 678 (etc.) gave the United States the standing, continuing authority to invade Iraq when and how it saw fit.
678 was explicit, at least for diplomats:
"The Security Council... Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions,
to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; "
No such language appears in 1441. "All necessary means" did appear in a first draft, but was removed when Russia and France objected, and replaced with the infamous "serious consequences" line.
Quoting here:
"The Security Council...
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance
with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, [b]in order to consider the situation and the need for
full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure
international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter."
That's it.
I see no authorization there.
Neither did Kofi Annan, who indicated "If the U.S. and others were to go outside the council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the charter."
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/sprj.irq.un/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/sprj.irq.un/</a>
