There are some interesting Jus In Bello takeaways in this war and some rampant profiteering - but you're right, what's being discussed is theJus ad Bellum. I would say the war was unlawful and that Tony Blair skirted the lines around misleading parliament carefully - with neither of the main parties supporting any further investigation after Chilcott there's no real chance of getting more information out there.

What Bush and Blair did was police the aftermath of Resolution 1441 as though they were acting on behalf of the UN - if the UN has no mechanism by which to hold its members to account for actions falling outside its jurisdictions then we're back down to the league of nations. Russia, China and France were all pretty clear that there should be no rights for individual nations to act outside of the security council and barristers within the government like Jack Straw kicked off.

I think it's fair to call the war an illegal war... Kofi Annan thought so and I do too. If the war was an illegal war, then the actions taken by those participating in the war was criminal. So I have no problem calling Tony Blair a war criminal.... I would suggest that some international law has been broken. The Rome Statute ICC.

A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes: Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;

(b) the anticipated military advantage;

(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

I think a failure to adequately plan the war and foresee the consequences of the subsequent civil war, the potential misleading of parliament and the overwhelming military response to a perceived (but not actual) threat puts Tony Blair at risk of prosecution though unlikely to face charges at all. The undermining of the UN back then has left it hamstrung against China in the South China sea and Russia in the border of the EU today. Should either of those super-powers expand, I fully expect Tony Blair to face charges of being a War Criminal, from within the confines of my gulag. I won't mind, it might mean extra rations for the rest of us.

Thanks for dropping by and adding to the convo, always nice to debate law and Tony. :o)