Background
Sir Christopher is the son of Captain Murray Greenwood and Diana Greenwood. He is married with two daughters.
Sir Christopher is the son of Captain Murray Greenwood and Diana Greenwood. He is married with two daughters.
Educated at Raeburn Park School, Singapore, and Wellingborough School, United Kingdom. Studied law at Magdalene College, Cambridge: BA (1976), LL.B (1977), MA (1980).
Fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge (1978-1996), Fellow Commoner (1996-2009), Honorary Fellow (2009). Assistant Lecturer in Law (1981-1984) and Lecturer in Law (1984-1996), University of Cambridge; Professor of International Law, London School of Economics (1996-2009).
Barrister, Middle Temple (1978); Queen’s Counsel (1999); Bencher, Middle Temple (2003).
He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in 1978 and was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1999.
Barrister, Middle Temple (1978); Queen’s Counsel (1999); Bencher, Middle Temple (2003).
Member of the Panels of Arbitrators for the Law of the Sea Treaty and the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes.
Counsel before the International Court of Justice in Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. United Kingdom); Advisory Opinions on Nuclear Weapons; Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. United Kingdom); Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. United Kingdom); Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo(Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda); Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras).
Counsel before the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Communities, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the United Nations Compensation Commission and various international arbitration tribunals.
Appearances as Counsel before the English courts include: R. v. Bow Street Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet (No. 1) [2000] 1 AC 147 and (No. 3) [2000] 1 AC 147 (House of Lords); Holland v. Lampen-Wolfe [2000] 1 WLR 1573 (House of Lords), Kuwait Airways Corporation v. Iraqi Airways Co. [2002] 2 AC 883 (House of Lords); R (European Roma Rights Centre) v. Immigration Officer [2005] 2 AC 1 (House of Lords); Jones v. Saudi Arabia [2007] 1 AC 270 (House of Lords); R (Al-Skeini) v. Secretary of State [2008] 1 AC 153 (House of Lords); R (Al-Jedda) v. Secretary of State [2008] 1 AC 332.
Counsel in cases in Bermuda and Gibraltar; expert witness in cases in the United States of America and Canada.
President, Arbitration Tribunal, Corn Products v. United Mexican States (NAFTA-ICSID, 2004-2009); Member Arbitration Tribunals: Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom (Permanent Court of Arbitration, 2001), Azpetrol v. Azerbaijan (ICSID, 2006-2009), European Media Ventures v. Czech Republic (2007-2009) and various other cases.
Greenwood is well known for the October 2002 legal opinion tendered to the British government, entitled The Legality of Using Force Against Iraq. The legal opinion, which he signed in his capacity as a law professor, has been used to justify that the invasion by Britain, the United States and allied powers was sanctioned by the UN Security Council. However, the opinion was concluded in the month before the adoption of UN Resolution 1441 and the conclusion was stated to be dependent on one of three conditions being satisfied. These conditions (he said) were "if the UN Security Council adopts a fresh resolution authorizing military action against Iraq and any conditions set out in that resolution are met" - this did not happen; or "under existing Security Council resolutions on the basis that the Security Council considered that (a) Iraq is in material breach of those resolutions" and (b) "that breach constitutes a threat to international peace and security in the Gulf area. This would not require a fresh Security Council authorization of military action". The question of whether these conditions were satisfied is controversial and unclear, since there was no further resolution which might have rendered the point clear. Alternatively, "under the right of self-defence if an armed attack by Iraq against the United Kingdom or one of its allies was reasonably believed to be imminent. This would not require any action by the Security Council." In practice, this condition turned on whether the UK (for example) reasonably believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction which might be launched 45 minutes after an order to do so, and that the government of Iraq were likely to use those weapons. Although a dossier published by the British Government said that they did (the so called "dodgy dossier" examined during the Hutton Inquiry), it later turned out that they did not, and, moreover, the basis of the stated belief to the contrary has been challenged. This, too, therefore, remains a highly controversial question.
Greenwood has also acted as counsel for the government of the United Kingdom in relation to a number of cases in both domestic and international courts: the Ojdanic case in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; Federal Republic of Yugoslavia v. United Kingdom in the International Court of Justice; the General Assembly request to the ICJ for an advisory opinion on the Palestinian wall (UK observations on admissibility); R (on the application of the European Roma Rights Centre and others) v. Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and others; and R (on the application of Abbasi and Mubanga) v. the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others.