In lieu of an official statement, it appears that the US is relying on the above-noted informal statements given during interviews by Ambassadors Pickering and Richardson. The two interviews noted wherein Thomas Pickering, the US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, explained the US position occurred on 19 December 1997 and 19 February 1998. Ambassador Pickering answered questions put to him as to the legal basis for the proposed military action by the US and its partners. A recorded version of his answers was obtained from the website operated by the US Information Agency :

The United States believes that Saddam Hussein, in agreeing to accept the cease-fire and the Resolution 687 which implemented it, also agreed to accept the disarmament of his weapons of mass destruction. Having created in fact a situation in which he is no longer obviously complying with that resolution - he is blocking access to inspections, he has not fully complied with the requirement of the resolutions to provide full disclosure of his programs in the first 15 days after the resolution was passed back in 1991. That means that in our legal view the underlying resolution which authorized the use of force, all necessary means, at the end of November in 1990, the famous Resolution 678, still applies. And in the absence of a binding cease-fire there is on the part of the United Nations and others the right to use force.[11]

As of this writing, this is the only item appearing on the above website under the heading "Legal Basis for Possible Use of Force." A more recent explanation of the US position was given in an interview that occurred immediately after the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1154 which endorsed the Annan Agreement and warned of "severest consequences" for any violation. A recorded version of this interview was obtained from the website operated by ABC News:

CHRIS WALLACE: With us from our New York bureau, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson.

Mr. Ambassador, the Security Council did not give the US the automatic trigger to strike if Iraq violates the agreement, but as we just said, the word from the State Department is the resolution doesn't matter. Does the US have to go back to the UN before launching a military strike?

BILL RICHARDSON (New York): No, we don't Chris. It's always been America's position that there was sufficient authority in existing Security Council resolutions for us to take such unilateral action. What happened today in the Security Council, 15-0, only reinforces that position, because if you look at the language in the resolution, it says that if Iraq fails to comply, it will be hit with the severest consequences. Other states had wanted to water that down. We won a big victory today. Basically, the onus is now on Iraq. If they mess around with the secretary general's agreement, if they fail to provide unfettered, unconditional access to all sites, that's a violation and there will be some very, very severe consequences.[12]

The Canadian government has explained its reasons for supporting the US position in several speeches given by the Prime Minister and others.[13] On the issue of the legal authority of the US to proceed without a new resolution from the Security Council, Mr. Ted McWhinney, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, gave the following explanation during a debate in Parliament:

There has been some discussion on the legal authority of the United States and by the same token those associated or allied with the United States to take action involving the potential use of force against Iraq. It has been said "You must go to the security council and get a fresh resolution."

I do not think that it is so as a matter of legal interpretation. In fact the gulf operation was rather special. It was undertaken by a government on Canada's part previous to the present one, and the United States by a president previous to the present president. What was done was a little different from classic UN peacekeeping operations or peacemaking operations where in fact there is a UN force under the aegis of the UN secretary-general and responsible to the secretary-general.

In fact what was done was a series of umbrella resolutions delegating the power to the United States commander in chief and responsible to the president of the United States. I say that was an unusual action but the series of resolutions have a broad, legal authority for which I think it can reasonably be argued that the authority to take the present action is there.

My own advice would be if the opportunity allows to seek a fresh security council resolution, but I do not think it is legally necessary and we would have to bear in mind that the veto power operates. It is intolerable that the veto should be used to prevent collective action on which there is a consensus. This was the argument we made and other countries made as far back as the Korean war in 1950 when the general assembly passed the uniting for peace resolution, an unprecedented constitutional step. I think the legal authority is there.[14]

A brief commentary offering arguments on both sides of the issue was published at an early stage by Professor Frederic L. Kirgis who teaches international law at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia. Professor Kirgis' commentary appeared in a leaflet published by the American Society of International Law in November, 1997.[15] This commentary drew a response published some months later in March 1998 by Edwin D. Williamson who, during the period when the November Resolution (678) and the April Resolution (687) were adopted, held the position of Legal Advisor to the US State Department. The commentary and the response are reproduced in full in Appendix 4.

Reference should also be made to several media reports that have spoken of arguments favouring the sufficiency of the existing Security Council resolutions. There have been several reports of interviews conducted by journalists with experts in international law who have expressed opinions on this subject.

For instance, the New York Times carried a story that referred to an interview with Professor Ruth Wedgewood who teaches international law at Yale University and occupies the post of senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Professor Wedgewood is quoted as upholding the sufficiency of the existing resolutions on the ground that "Resolution 687 made the cease-fire conditional on inspection, and Iraq's refusal to cooperate [with the inspections] would allow the US to infer that the Gulf War is not over."[16]

In another report, the journalist stated that there were several precedents for military action and observed that "The US has used military force against Iraq four times since the end of the Gulf War in 1991. In each case, there was little opposition to the American assertions that it had legal authority to act."[17]

The New York Times also reported on an interview with Lori Fisler Damrosch, a professor of international law at Columbia University, who is quoted as saying "There is sufficient authority already there, without a new resolution."[18] The report of this interview does not elaborate. Finally, the New York Times carried a letter to the editor from John Carey. He is an adjunct professor on international law at New York University, the Editor of the UN Law Report and formerly Vice President of the American Society of International Law. After being contacted for purposes of this paper, Professor Carey produced an expanded version of this letter along with a subsequent letter submitted to the Christian Science Monitor. Professor Carey's two letters contain the fullest explanation on the US position that appears to be available. They are reproduced in full in Appendix 5. The various arguments noted in this section are considered below in Sections V, VI and VII.