The document where i quoted

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

did not contain "US views of....". I am sure there are differences. And sometimes the Supreme Court weighs in on stuff like the administration's adherence to the Geneva Conventions (which the US and other countries follow), and as a result one could argue that the differences in views of international law may be reduced as a result.


>You left out the sentence before this in that briefing paper which reads :
>“US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community,”
>
>>The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.