Mr. Speaker, the House wants to hear about international law tonight. How very interesting.
Earlier tonight, the member for Vancouver Quadra had a test question for the member for Red Deer, a very difficult one too. The member for Red Deer gave a very political answer.
I will try to reply to the question using the knowledge we share, which we want to see benefit the House, moreover. There is some value to having expertise and to being willing to share it with one's colleagues during debates such as this.
It is difficult under current international law to claim that force can be used under chapter 7 without the formal approval of the Security Council. The use of force was possible during the Gulf crisis because the Security Council authorized certain states to use force.
Just a few months ago, we debated in this House the potential use of force against Iraq. Members will remember that, on several occasions, I asked the government if it thought that Canada and other states had the authority to use force against Iraq. That question remained unanswered. I know that legal opinions were provided on the subject.
But I think it is difficult to claim, under international law as it currently stands, that the use of force, even in this case, would be consistent with the charter without prior authorization of the Security Council.
On the other hand, are we seeing a customary rule emerge from a practice whereby the states will be able to invoke a breach of the peace to justify an intervention? I think that circumventing the charter by invoking a customary rule that would allow states to intervene in a case like this may be a way to solve the problem.
Article 51 may be the only legal basis that could be used to justify an intervention in this case, even though it would require a very liberal interpretation of that article.
Beyond all that and even as an internationalist, I think we must weigh the good and the bad in this type of situation.
If we think that an armed intervention is necessary to protect the most fundamental of human rights, if the international community agrees that such an intervention is legitimate, and if the international public is in favour of this intervention, then it is surely justified. Such intervention will free many people from the terror inflicted upon them by individuals who, one day, will hopefully have to appear before an international criminal tribunal and be held accountable for their war crimes and their crimes against humanity before the international community.