“British Troops to be Exempted from Human Rights Law”

4 October 2016 by

british-army-troops-iraq..is the headline of the leading article in The Times today.

Theresa May vows to end ‘vexatious claims’ against service personnel. In the UK about £100 million has been spent since 2004 dealing with thousands of cases lodged against soldiers who served in Iraq. Many were launched under ECHR laws on rights to life and liberty.

Apparently the Prime Minister will announce today that under proposals she has put forward, Britain plans to opt out of international human rights law when it goes to war. British troops will be free to take “difficult decisions” on the battlefield without fear of legal action when they come home. This move follows an outcry over investigations into thousands of claims against soldiers by a government body examining alleged human rights abuses in Iraq. Mrs May said that the plan would

put an end to the industry of vexatious claims that has pursued those who served in previous conflicts.

Britain will put in place temporary derogations against parts of the Convention before planned military actions.

Since the Convention has been extended to cover actions by soldiers outside the jurisdiction of the UK and other signatory states, many senior officers have warned that operations will be undermined by soldiers wary of taking risks.

Over the past years Article 2 of the Convention, which imposes upon a state the duty to refrain from unlawful deprivation of life, to investigate suspicious deaths and prevent avoidable deaths, has been extended the reach of human rights to British troops in Iran and Afghanistan, and has been applied to military action, which inevitably has the consequences of death. Some argue that whilst soldiers should adhere to the Geneva Convention, the Human Rights Convention has no place in the fog of war. A report by the former military assistant to the chief of the defence staff Tom Tugendhat indicated in 2013 that the effects of human rights law were already harming the country’s defences.

Writing in The Times Letters page, Lord Brown, former Supreme Court Justice, agrees that armed conflict should be governed by international humanitarian law (the Geneva Convention), not by human rights law.

Incidentally, is it not bizarre that our own troops in, for example, Iraq or Afghanistan should be subject to the ECHR when those of our allies such as the United States obviously are not? (Letters, Friday September 30 2016)

Lord Brown goes on to say that he would support legislation designed to deal “more appropriately” with complaints and claims arising out of armed conflict, including claims by our own forces against the Ministry of Defence.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

12 comments


  1. […] troops exempted from the Human Rights Act? [UK Human Rights Blog] [Independent] […]

  2. Dan Smith says:

    For God’s sake, they’ve got a covenant.

  3. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

  4. James Lawson XIX says:

    You have to hand it to the government. They have, through a coordinated PR campaign in the media, managed to manufacture a political consensus to justify the removal of a right in action against the Government under Human Rights norms by convincing its potential beneficiaries and those who support them with a legitimately claim, that they are, in fact, the victims of what they would pray in aid of for their own protection.

  5. D.R.Fairn says:

    Reblogged this on The Burst Signal..

  6. sdbast says:

    Reblogged this on sdbast.

  7. Interestingly, Israeli law is very clear that human rights apply even to the military engaged in conflict: “Even when the trumpets of war sound, the rule of law will make its voice heard.”

    Very interesting chapter on this in Aharon Barak’s book ‘The Judge in a Democracy’

    1. JM says:

      Rachel Corrie?

      just one example….:-(

  8. wytzia says:

    What about article 15 of the ECHR? Notstandfest

  9. JM says:

    thought they already were along with all other government employees and any private company employee who works for them?

  10. Alan M Dransfield says:

    She needs to look at the FOIVexatious BS as a matter of urgency because that is depriving thousands of people in the UK their Civil and Human rights.
    In particular I refer to the GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield vICO

  11. Gavin Steele says:

    Rosalind, here’s a very different perspective – would you care to respond to these points?

    https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/press-releases-and-statements/dangerous-and-incoherent-liberty-condemns-government-plan-cover

    What about those British soldiers who are proud to fight “honourably” – and therefore have no problem being held to the highest ethical standards on the battlefield?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: