1. Legal advice sought by Tom Watson, Labour Deputy Leader, suggests strikes against Syria were against international law
2. Advice says - 'neither the UN Charter nor customary international law permits military action on the basis of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. There is very little support by states for such an exception to the prohibition of the use of force.'
3.'The legal position advanced by the government ignores the structure of the international law rules relating to the use of force, in particular, because a customary international law rule does not prevail over the rule in the United Nations Charter prohibiting the use of force'
3. Advice goes on to say... 'Even if there was a doctrine of humanitarian intervention in international law, the strikes against Syria would not appear to meet the tests set out by the government.'
4. Truth is - lawyers don't agree on all of this, so is it likely politicians will? Both sides will use the law to support their chosen side of the argument....
