The Government is of the view that threats to international peace and security should be dealt with through the United Nations and in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter contains a general prohibition on the use of force, subject to two exceptions, both set out in Chapter VII of the charter. These are self-defence, Article 51, and collective enforcement action authorised by the Security Council in response to threats to or breaches of international peace and security or acts of aggression, Article 42.
Article 51 of the charter recognises the right of states to take action in pursuit of individual or collective self-defence, if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations. The charter requires states taking such action to notify the Security Council immediately.
It is widely accepted that the right to self-defence encompasses an entitlement to take limited and proportionate action where necessary to counter the threat of imminent attack. In any case, it is clear from the charter that the right to act in self-defence is recognised only until such time as the Security Council has itself taken measures necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Ireland does not accept that such an entitlement to limited and proportionate action should be interpreted as a general license to endorse the concept of the pre-emptive strike.
The Taoiseach addressed this issue in his statement to the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September, when he stated that the Irish Government would be concerned at the widespread acceptance of a doctrine of pre-emptive strike. He underlined Ireland's view that conflict would be more effectively prevented through a range of diplomatic, economic and humanitarian actions. He called for more attention to be paid to addressing the root causes of conflict, and to the early identification of potential conflicts. Where conflict had become a possibility, the international community should act more aggressively to head it off. He stressed that any conflict that threatened international peace and security was the UN's legitimate business and should be dealt with by the Security Council.
The Government is in agreement with the views expressed in the UN General Assembly by UN Secretary General Annan on 23 September when he stated that the assertion that states had the right and obligation to use force pre-emptively represented a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested since the foundation of the UN. At the same time, according to the Secretary General, it was also necessary to face up squarely to the concerns that made some states feel uniquely vulnerable and drove them to take unilateral action, and to show that these concerns could and would be addressed through collective action.
At no stage has this Government propounded a view at variance with international law. Regarding Iraq, in our explanation of vote when Resolution 1441 was adopted, we stated that regardless of the legal arguments as to whether Iraq's continued defiance of existing UN resolutions already gave sufficient grounds for military action to be taken, we felt that for reasons of according the widest possible political legitimacy for any such action, a further decision by the Security Council should be taken on that matter. It is also clear that under international law, the provision of landing facilities or the use of airspace does not constitute a participation by us in a war.