It would seem that international law are with Bush and Blair.

Articles 40 and 51 are the only ones that refer directly to this issue. Both of these support the position of the United States and Britain.


from Article 40
Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned.

The actions of the Secuity Council do not in any way prejudice The USA's and Britain's right to engage Iraq


from Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,

The Iraqi ground defenses have repeated fired upon Allied aircraft patrolling the "no fly zones" This can certainly be interpreted as an attack on the militaries of these countries.

All of the language of the charter refers to what the Security Council may do. The only way that USA and Britian would be defying the UN charter would be if the Security council were to sanction them. But that would be impossible because both governments have veto power. I'm not saying that what they are doing in Iraq is right. But this part of the UN charter certainly doesn't say that it is legally wrong.