Dear oh dear. How do you work that out comrade Whall?
Under the UN Charter war must be approved by the UN Security Council.
This is seen through Article 39.
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 41 involves peaceful sanctions whilst 42 involves force. Articles 39, 41 and 42 are seen here.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml
Article 51 (which is also sourced at the above link) states that the only time force may be used without the express consent of the UN Security Council is when a nation has been attacked by a sovereign state and is using self-defence.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml
Therefore the Iraq War is an illegal war under international law and therefore Bush, Blair, Howard and the other leaders of the Coalition of the Willing have committed war crimes.
This view is corroborated by the following
The then-Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm
Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.
The then-Attorney General of the United Kingdom, Lord Goldsmith -
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jun/30/chilcot-inquiry-lord-goldsmith-blair
"In view of your meeting with President Bush on Friday," Goldsmith told Blair, "I thought you might wish to know where I stand on the question of whether a further decision of the [UN] security council is legally required in order to authorise the use of force against Iraq."
Goldsmith warned Blair that he "remained of the view that the correct legal interpretation of resolution 1441 [the last security council decision on Iraq] is that it does not authorise the use of force without a further determination by the security council".
Goldsmith concluded: "My view remains that a further [UN] decision is required." A handwritten note, believed to be by David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, warned: "Clear advice from attorney on need for further resolution."
Pentagon advisor Richard Perle -
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1
international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone
Former UN Weapons Inspector (and former Governor of Tasmania) Richard Butler -
http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia/vol1/iss1/2/
The Charter is why Iraq?s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the U.S./U.K.
invasion of Iraq in 2003 were both illegal actions. Neither actions were approved or
undertaken on behalf of the Security Council under the rubric of ?the maintenance
of international peace and security.?
In contrast, the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait in 1991, by a U.N. mandated
force, comprising twenty-nine countries, but led militarily by the United States, was
legal.
