More on self-defence
The Australian parliamentary library has updated Disarming' Iraq under International Law. To quote:

'In the current circumstances, there is no solid basis in international law for the US or any other State using military force to unilaterally implement or enforce Iraq's WMD obligations under the various UNSC resolutions, except perhaps if this was supported by a significant majority of UNSC members. Nor has the case yet been made out that force could be legally employed under so-called 'pre-emptive' self-defence. This said, the uncertainties over what the boundaries of international law actually are suggests work needs to be done by the international community on the subject.

However, obtaining international agreement to possibly expanding the legal boundaries regarding the use of force ? say by amending the UN Charter ? will likely be very difficult if States feel that this is merely an attempt to sideline the 'international peace and security' mandate of the UNSC. In the meantime, the statements by Ambassador Negroponte and Senator Hill quoted earlier in this paper illustrate the limitations of international law. Whilst most States may generally attempt to act consistently with international law, their respective governments perceptions of national interest is the most powerful driver of foreign policy, particularly in the short term.'

Despite his promises John Howard produced no new evidence of an imminent threat to Australia or any other nation in yesterday's speech.