| Submit your comments on this article | |
| International | |
| ’Illegal war’ could mean soldiers face prosecution | |
| 2003-03-12 | |
| Ministers face the real prospect of waging an illegal war, which could lead to British soldiers being prosecuted by the newly constituted International Criminal Court (ICC). Do you see the US point of view now Tony ? The shaky legal grounds upon which Britain and America are expected to launch their military offensive have already been exposed by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan. But Mr Annan's warning that military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution would be illegal is being supported by a growing number of senior British lawyers. So Mr. Annan now determines what UK foreign policy can and cannot do ? Stephen Solley QC, an international human rights lawyer, said yesterday: "I feel this is a defining moment in our history which our children will want to ask us about. No one has made a legal case for war." God help us if we need to take action but have to wait for France, Russia, China, and Syria to tell us it is legal. But he said it was also clear British troops could be the first to face war crimes charges at the ICC. The court, which was formally opened in the Hague yesterday, has the power to bring to trial individual soldiers, commanders and politicians charged with war crimes. International lawyers argue that any military attack that killed Iraqi civilians could lead to British soldiers being prosecuted at the new court. But because America and Iraq are not signatories to the Rome treaty, which created the ICC, their soldiers are immune from prosecution. Works for me The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, is known to have advised the Prime Minister on the legal issues surrounding the prospect of war, but it is understood that the risk of soldiers being prosecuted by the ICC is of most concern. Military action in breach of UN resolutions would mean little if the sanction constituted no more than a finding that the UK was in violation of international law. But potential sentences of life imprisonment for soldiers acting on the orders of the Prime Minister will have concentrated the minds of the Government's law officers. Peter Carter QC, chairman of the Bar's human rights committee, said British commanders would have to "adapt a very different attitude to their American colleagues so they can justify every military act of attrition against every target." He said it could cause real difficulties in joint actions between the forces.
Whoda thunk it? The US did smarty pants! James Crawford, a professor at Cambridge University and a member of Cherie Booth's chambers Matrix, said it was important to realise no "criminal charges" could be brought against Britain or America for a use of force that breached UN or international law. But he added that, under the terms of the ICC, British soldiers and commanders could be prosecuted for war crimes. In the past few weeks, legal opinion has become increasingly unified in the belief that the US and its allies cannot rely on the principle of anticipatory self-defence to justify action against Iraq in the absence of a fresh UN resolution. Article 51 of the UN charter allows self-defence only if an armed attack occurs against a member state and, even then, only until the Security Council has taken action. Ya way! Not! | |
| Posted by:domingo |
| #13 Any British squadie who finds him or herself under threat of prosecution in the UK ought to be whisked right into the USA as a political refugee. Give 'em the same asylum status we give to other foreign nationals. |
| Posted by: JDB 2003-03-12 17:15:16 |
| #12 11A5S - Something similar already exists, but seems to act primarily as a forum for organising cricket matches - the British Commonwealth. It's a pretty patronising concept really (the Queen does tours and blesses zoos and premieres and stuff), but encompasses most of the anglosphere. Including the likes of Zimbabwe. I'm not sure if language should be the basic criterion for something as serious, but I'm having trouble thinking of some other benchmark that would automatically exclude the French! |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-03-12 17:13:44 |
| #11 "Article 51 of the UN charter allows self-defence only if an armed attack occurs against a member state and, even then, only until the Security Council has taken action" This is obviously nonsense. For starters, all NATO countries are bound by treaty to come to the defence of (that is, to go to war for) any one of them being attacked. If Germany was attacked by, say, France, Britain would come to Germany's aid, attacking France, even though Britain had not been attacked, and regardless of whether the UNSC liked it or not. Similar things are probably true with other such organizations (e.g., SEATO) - or what good would they be. |
| Posted by: Patrick 2003-03-12 16:44:25 |
| #10 Bulldog: It was Robert Conquest who in his 1999 book, Reflections on a Ravaged Century, first put forth that the UK, the US and the ex-Dominions (less Quebec one would assume) should band together politically and economically. This was long before it became popular to speak of the Anglosphere on the Web. When I first read Conquest's proposal, I thought it absolute rubbish. After all, the EU and NAFTA were so successful. We were just becoming one big happy free market. The events of the past four years have made me realize that Conquest is absolutely right and I was utterly wrong. The Continentals and rest of the world share little in common with the Anglosphere. We need stick together to protect our common values. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-03-12 14:32:33 |
| #9 Jenin Massacre should be in quotes in the comment above, of course, since it wasn't a massacre but instead a bunch of bullocks created by Palestinians and journalists hoping to find evidence against Isreal. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-03-12 12:25:49 |
| #8 If a War Crime is suspected and the UK does a real trial into the evidence the iCC should have no jurisdiction, in theory. I suspect we'll see lots of Jenin massacres and claims of coverups as a way for little nations to throw mud at western troops. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-03-12 12:24:10 |
| #7 Kofi is whistling out of his a$$ with his weak threat of legalities. Every nation that participated in the Gulf War 1 has every legal authority to resume hostilities. In fact, as Iraq has violated every provision of the cease fire he signed, we are already technically in a state of hositlities with Iraq. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2003-03-12 10:53:37 |
| #6 which no one with a scintilla of wit can turn a blind eye to any more France ? Russia ? Germany ? UK Labor party members trying to force Tony's resignation ? Liberal Dems in the US ? Hopefully the electorate in these places do have a scintilla of wit. |
| Posted by: Domingo 2003-03-12 10:11:05 |
| #5 Ridiculous situation. Whatever Blair says in public now, he must be wishing we were out of UN and all the pointless junk that comes with it. A good outcome of this Iraq fiasco wil be that it has exposed many gaping flaws in the United Nations and its institutions which no one with a scintilla of wit can turn a blind eye to any more. Roll on the Organisation of Democratic States, HQ Baghdad. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-03-12 09:50:31 |
| #4 G wiz, The UK signed the treaty I would think that they would be under obligation to deliver any indicted defendant to the world court as long as they resided in UK controlled territory, citizen or not. Hence the idea or surrendering sovereignty to international law. |
| Posted by: Domingo 2003-03-12 09:36:57 |
| #3 and what scary army would bring british soldiers or officers or politicians to trial? Cameroon's? Chile's? France's?? China and Russia weren't dumb enough to sign up either so don't look to them. |
| Posted by: g wiz 2003-03-12 08:46:53 |
| #2 As of March 10, 2003, 89 countries have ratified the ICC - here's the list - the UK would be wise to rethink their participation in this sham |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-03-12 08:27:16 |
| #1 Christ, this really smacks of socialism, where everybody gets dragged down to the lowest common denominator and our economic and military strength means squat, or mob rule with a simple majority dictating every issue. I don't like this at all! Screw the ICC and screw the UN! I could understand NATO, the Warsaw Pact, OPEC, OAS, and other blocs. The UN is worthless and weak. We need to do what is right, not what's popular. |
| Posted by: Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-12 07:59:50 |