May and Might

‗May‘ is one of the central modals in legal discourse. Since the main value of this modal is permission, it is fundamental to understand what is permitted and what is not, especially when granting specific rights or solving complex issues, such as the ones involved in the Second Gulf war.

The modal ‗may‘ has two main uses. In the epistemic functions, the knowledge-oriented use of ‗may‘ indicates that an event is judged to have an equal possibility of occurring or not. The other meaning is connected to deontic modality, because its meaning involves social authority having the power to create or prevent the possibility of an event, either as ‗asking permission‘ or ‗giving permission‘.

The performative deontic possibility is also known in the legal and diplomatic profession as

‗discretionary may‘ (Lauridsen 1992), because the legislature is the deontic source that permits the referent of the subject noun phrase in the active clause to carry out, at their discretion, the events expressed by the main propositions.

In example (84) below ‗may‘ co-occurs with the expression ―at their discretion‖; in other cases it is implicit in the modal, as in example (85):

(84) 5.[…] further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter […]. (S/RES/1441 (2002))

120

(85) 1. Decides that the provisions contained in paragraph 4 of resolution 1472 (2003) shall remain in force until 3 June 2003 and may be subject to further renewal by the Council […].

(S/RES/1476 (2003))

As regards epistemic negatives, ‗may not‘ negates the event of the main proposition, whereas deontic

‗may not‘ negates the modal proposition. There are no occurrences of negative ‗may‘ in the Iraq corpus.

In the corpus, 9 of 13 occurrences of ‗may‘ are used to express root ‗permission‘, as illustrated in the following examples:

(86) 4. Decides that, beginning at 0001 hours, Eastern Daylight Time, on 30 May 2002, the funds in the escrow account established pursuant to paragraph 7 of resolution 986 (1995) may also be used to finance the sale or supply to Iraq of those commodities or products that are authorized for sale or supply to Iraq under paragraph 3 above, provided that the conditions of paragraph 8 (a) of resolution 986 (1995) are met […]. (S/RES/1409 (2002))

(87) 23. […] unless otherwise addressed, claims made by private individuals or non-government entities on those transferred funds or other financial assets may be presented to the internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq; and decides further that all such funds or other financial assets or economic resources shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, and protections as provided under paragraph 22 […]. (S/RES/1483 .(2003))

Moreover, it is quite interesting to notice that the open-endedness of the two clauses is reinforced by the use of the conjunction ‗also‘ and the indefinite ‗other‘. They seem to allow to ‗stretch‘ the meaning of the already vague expressions they refer to, in order to allow further action if necessary.

Four are cases of epistemic possibility:

(88) 4. Requests the Secretary-General to provide a comprehensive report to the Council, […]

including in his reports any observations which he may have on the adequacy of the revenues to meet Iraq‘s humanitarian needs […]. (S/RES/1447 (2002))

(89) 28. Welcomes the commitments of many creditors, including those of the Paris Club, to identify ways to reduce substantially Iraq‘s sovereign debt, calls on Member States, as well as

121

internationa1 and regional organizations, to support the Iraq reconstruction effort, urges the international financial institutions and bilateral donors to take the immediate steps necessary to provide their full range of loans and other financial assistance and arrangements to Iraq, recognizes that the Interim Government of Iraq will have the authority to conclude and implement such agreements and other arrangements as may be necessary in this regard, and requests creditors, institutions and donors to work as a priority on these matters with the Interim Government of Iraq and its successors […]. (S/RES/1546 (2004))

(90) 22. Noting the relevance of the establishment of an internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq and the desirability of prompt completion of the restructuring of Iraq‘s debt as referred to in paragraph 15 above, further decides that, until December 31, 2007, unless the Council decides otherwise, petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas originating in Iraq shall be immune, until title passes to the initial purchaser from legal proceedings against them and not be subject to any form of attachment, garnishment, or execution, and that all States shall take any steps that may be necessary under their respective domestic legal systems to assure this protection, and that proceeds and obligations arising from sales thereof, as well as the Development Fund for Iraq, shall enjoy privileges and immunities equivalent to those enjoyed by the United Nations […].

(S/RES/1483 (2003))

(91) Noting further that other States that are not occupying powers are working now or in the future may work under the Authority […]. (S/RES/1483 (2003))

Thus, in this corpus, ‗may‘ is principally used by the Security Council to give permission.

There is also one occurrence of ‗might‘ in the corpus. Usually ‗might‘ is used to express permission, in the past or possibility and probability. The example included in the corpus expresses a possibility:

(92) 25. Decides to review the implementation of this resolution within twelve months of adoption and to consider further steps that might be necessary […]. (S/RES/1483 (2003))

122