Please send CND a donation towards costs of this historic legal challenge.

Send donations to CND Public Information, 162 Holloway Rd, London N7 8DQ. 

Or you can donate directly to: CND Public Information at the Co-Op Bank, sort code: 08 90 33, account no: 50425088. CND does not have charity status so please do not send charity cheques. Thank you.

Click here for full text of legal challenge

Click here for response from Government solicitors

Click here for full text of the judgement.

Support the white ribbons for peace appeal. Click here for details of  Mark Thomas's  58-date UK tour: 'Iraq, the US and the 'war on terror'.

CND challenged the legality of the UK Government’s decision to go to war against Iraq. The case was argued by Rabinder Singh QC and Charlotte Kilroy of Matrix and Michael Fordham of Blackstone Chambers. 

CND’s case was that the government would be acting illegally if it uses armed force against Iraq without a fresh Security Council Resolution. It argued also that the present resolutions, including UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (adopted on 8 November 2002) do not impliedly or explicitly contain an authorisation of the use of force. 

The case made history by a decision of the Divisional Court on 5 December 2002 that, even if CND loses, its liability to pay the Government’s costs should be limited to £25,000. There has never been such a pre-emptive costs order made before in the UK.

The case was historic for a number of reasons:
1, because no individual or group has ever (successfully) challenged a decision of its own government to declare war or use force;
2, because lawyers have always assumed that the declaration of war was entirely a political decision beyond the control of the judiciary. However, in this case, CND argued that as the UK Government has said it will be bound by international law, because it has got the law wrong means that this is a matter for judicial intervention; 
3, because if CND were right, in the future, matters of foreign and defence policy would, in some circumstances, be capable of being scrutinised by the courts.

Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers said: “There is no doubt that we are right in saying that international law does not permit the government to go to war unless there is a fresh Security Council Resolution. Even then there are strict limits on the use of that force in accordance with principles of necessity and proportionality. The question today is whether CND will be barred from arguing their case simply because of the political context.”

Carol Naughton, the Chair of CND said: “This war is illegal, immoral and illogical and this deals with the first of those questions. It is vitally important that the government should be made to comply with international law rather than undermine the Security Council by acting unilaterally. If the UK is forced to await a fresh Security Council Resolution it gives all concerned the continuing opportunity to obey the law which requires that all peaceful means be used to resolve this dispute over Iraq’s weapons.”