Can Chilcot Report be used to prosecute Tony Blair?

Question

Yesterday, The Iraq inquiry finally gave its report which is widely known as Chilcot Report. In this Report, the inquiry concluded:

1. Saddam Regime did not pose a threat to British interests
2. The evidence for presence of WMDs in Iraq was not credible/enough
3. UK and US were already looking for excuses to start the war even before the peaceful options to resolve the conflict were exhausted.
4. Legal authority for starting the war was far from satisfactory
5. War was unnecessary
6. Military action failed to achieve its goal and played a role in destabilisation of Iraq
7. Invaders moved in without an adequate plan for rebuilding Iraq

---

Given all these findings, It could be said that British PM of the time, Tony Blair, was responsible for deaths of British soldiers and millions of Iraqis. He could also be said to be responsible for the destabilization which resulted in rise of ISIS and global terrorism.

Following charges could possibly be leveled against Mr. Blair apparently:

1. Waging an unlawful war of aggression
2. Endangering world peace
3. War crimes committed by British Forces which could be tied to Mr. Blair due to responsibility of command.
4. Causing Millions of deaths of Iraqi civilians
5. Causing deaths of British servicemen and women
6. Lying to Parliament, Cabinet and British Public
7. Endangering British interests world wide and specifically in Middle East.
8. Endangering British lives home and over-seas.
9. Abuse of power and office

---

There is already a huge debate whether or not Tony Blair be taken to court now. Many people seem to be of the idea that this report has no legal basis and so Blair cannot be tried for any of these charges.

My Question is, Can he be prosecuted for the above mentioned charges by British or international bodies? If not for the above mentioned charges, Can he be prosecuted at all (And for what charges)?

EDIT: According to Lord Ken Macdonald, former director of Public Prosecutions:

Mr Blair’s behaviour could amount to the criminal offence of misconduct in public office. It “seemed very likely” Mr Blair had “roundly abused the trust placed in him by the public,”

Answer 1

Insert Standard IANAL Disclaimer here.

It would be highly unlikely that Tony Blair, George W (or even little Johnny Howard) could be trialed for War Crimes over Iraq. Especially George W as the US doesn't accept the War Crimes jurisdiction of the ICC.

Of the reports conclusions (as you've listed):

1.Saddam Regime did not pose a threat to British interests

This is an arguable point, but for determining anything, largely irrelevant, particularly as justification can be given under UK's position and responsibilities as part of the UNSC, and also as part of their alliance with the US.

2.The evidence for presence of WMDs in Iraq was not credible/enough

Again, arguable and irrelevant. Although turning out to be incorrect, the argument can (and already has) been made that they were acting on the best available intelligence at the time. The report you are referencing is written largely with the benefit of years of hindsight and with information that was not available prior to action in Iraq, and that is the kicker.

3.UK and US were already looking for excuses to start the war even before the peaceful options to resolve the conflict were exhausted.

This is nothing short of pure conjecture (however well supported, it is still largely opinion) and couldn't really stand up as its own argument.

4.Legal authority for starting the war was far from satisfactory

Far from satisfactory does not mean illegal. Immoral, yes, but no lacking in legal authority. Unsupported by the UNSC, but also technically enforcing the UNSC Resolutions.

5.War was unnecessary

Again, it's opinion, arguably correct but largely irrelevant. And also, again, written with the benefit of hindsight.

6.Military action failed to achieve its goal and played a role in destabilisation of Iraq

As with other findings in the report, this is based solely on hindsight and the events after the conflict ended. It has no bearing at all on the legalities of initiating the conflict.

7.Invaders moved in without an adequate plan for rebuilding Iraq

Again, has no bearing on the legalities of initiating the conflict and, as such, largely irrelevant.

Of course, all this will be used by people with a stick in their craw as justification for the vilification of government and certain people, but it doesn't, in itself, amount to being guilty of war crime or any offence more serious than a possible (however unlikely) charge of Misconduct in Public Office.

To date, there is only one official recorded incident of a War Crime under the International Criminal Court Act 2001 - one Donald Payne who was found guilty to a charge of Inhumane Treatment for the death of Baha Mousa

While the instigation of the Iraq War was questionable - especially with over a decade of hindsight - it hasn't been deemed illegal or found to contravene international law or UNSC resolutions. The legal justification for it revolves around Iraq failing to comply with previous UNSC Resolutions and it's something that most likely won't be resolved. But if it was as clearly illegal as some people claim then there would have been action taken against the aggressors.