The legality of wars
I'm more than a bit mystified by all this stuff about Iraq having needed a second UN resolution.
Is it really the case that we are signed up to an international set of rules that give China and Russia a security council veto over whether the UK government can decide to go to war, except in the obvious cases like self-defence against an attack?
If so, the rules are nuts. China is one of the few countries in the world that actually practices colonialism/imperialism, with its occupation and exploitation of Tibet. This is quite aside from their support for the Burmese junta and the genocidal Sudanese regime. Do we really think the Chinese should have had the right of veto over the USA and UK's actions against their mate Saddam?
And if the law was so clear cut, how come the US government, in a system with a far more powerful judiciary, seem to have had the same legal advice allowing them to go ahead as Goldsmith gave Blair?
Paxman is just pointing out on Newsnight that far from there being a question of the legality or not of Iraq, it's not even a justiciable question in most countries i.e. it is not a question that courts have any authority over.