JOHN Howard stands to lose more than the next
election if he commits Australian troops to Iraq. He could also find
himself facing charges of war crimes, according to international law
expert Gillian Triggs.
Professor Triggs said yesterday it was possible that soldiers and
political leaders from the "coalition of the willing" could be
charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Court if the
invasion went ahead without UN approval.
"It's a far-fetched scenario that John Howard would come before
the ICC, as the Attorney-General would first have to agree to his
extradition," said Professor Triggs, co-director of Melbourne
University's Institute for International and Comparative Law.
"But it's possible that if he loses the next election, a Labor
attorney-general could decide that Howard should have to defend himself
against charges of war crimes."
Only those countries that ratified the introduction of the ICC would
be subject to charges. Australia was one of 60 countries that signed the
statute of Rome last year, affiliating themselves with the ICC.
However, Iraq and the US remain outside the jurisdiction of the ICC,
having not signed the agreement.
Professor Triggs was one of 43 experts in international law and human
rights to put their names to an article, published in Sydney and
Melbourne newspapers last month, which claimed that a pre-emptive strike
on Iraq would be illegal.
However, 21 prominent legal figures have attacked that suggestion on
the Opinion page of The Australian today.
"An invasion of Iraq is legal for two reasons. There are
existing UN resolutions that allow for an attack, and secondly, for
reasons of self-defence," said co-author Stephen Hall, associate
professor of law at the City University of Hong Kong.
