an anti-war movement). Every night this week, BBC2 will show a 10-minute snippet of 10 Days to War (probably because 10 minutes is all the audience can take of legalised discussions about Iraq before seeking legal advice about assisted suicide), and follow it up with a 'heated' Newsnight debate about the issues raised. Last night Jeremy Paxman barked at his viewers, 'WAS the invasion of Iraq LEGAL? DID IT meet the requirements of a justifiable war? If not, does it MATTER?' - a salvo of questions that only raised another one in this viewer's mind: 'WHERE is the remote control?' There are three irritating things about the legalistic opposition to the attack on Iraq, or what we must now refer to as the legalistic- not -political opposition to the attack on Iraq. First, it is delusional. It is based on the massive self-deception that international law and its brave defenders and practitioners - lawyers - kept the world in tip-top shape until that cowboy George W Bush and his heel-snapping poodle Tony Blair came along and ruined everything. Philippe Sands, one of the key 'legal critics' of the bombing of Iraq, is a QC and author of Lawless World: Making and Breaking Global Rules ; he was a guest on last night's Newsnight debate about 10 Days to War . He argues: 'In August 1941, at a meeting off the coast of Newfoundland, Churchill and Roosevelt agreed they were going to put in place a new world order, a world