Sorry, Mr Blair [Howard], but 1441 does not authorise force
The 'Junior Prime Minister' [Howard's] legal argument for war is the same as the 'Foreign Minister' [Blair.] This article is a discussion of the legal arguments available to Blair and their weaknesses. There are three possible arguments: self-defence under article 51 (but the government has a credibility problem as no one thinks Iraq is about to attack the UK or Australia); Resolution 1441 and the 'serious consequences' clause (but the resolution avoided the war clause 'all necessary means'); and Resolution 687 'destroy all weapons of mass destruction' (but that Resolution did not authorise that force be used, the Security Council retains that power). Resolution 678, often referred to, did authorise 'all necessary means', ie force, but that applied only to evicting Iraq from Kuwait in 1991.

Sorry, Mr Blair [Howard], but 1441 does not authorise force
The 'Junior Prime Minister' [Howard's] legal argument for war is the same as the 'Foreign Minister' [Blair.] This article is a discussion of the legal arguments available to Blair and their weaknesses. There are three possible arguments: self-defence under article 51 (but the government has a credibility problem as no one thinks Iraq is about to attack the UK or Australia); Resolution 1441 and the 'serious consequences' clause (but the resolution avoided the war clause 'all necessary means'); and Resolution 687 'destroy all weapons of mass destruction' (but that Resolution did not authorise that force be used, the Security Council retains that power). Resolution 678, often referred to, did authorise 'all necessary means', ie force, but that applied only to evicting Iraq from Kuwait in 1991.