Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:17:32.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in the UK Courts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Dominic McGoldrick
Get access

Abstract

This article considers how arguments relating to the principle of joint applicability of international human rights law (IHR) and international humanitarian law (IHL) are playing out in the United Kingdom's courts. The core of the article is a case study of the decisions of the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords in Al-Skeini v. Secretary of State for Defence. The central issues of the case concerned the application of the UK's European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) obligations in the context of its activities in Iraq, and the extraterritorial application of the Human Rights Act, 1998. This case study of the domestic application of the principle is particularly useful for considering (i) its practical implications on the specific facts of particular cases; (ii) the argumentation used by the UK government and judges; (iii) the difficulties of national courts in analyzing the IHR and IHL rights jurisprudence; and (iv) the significant differences between IHR and IHL in terms of positive obligations and domestic remedies.

Type
Research Article
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , Summer 2007 , pp. 527 - 562
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Liverpool Human Rights Program, International and European Law Unit, Liverpool Law School, University of Liverpool, [email protected].

References

1 See Teitel, Ruti G., Humanity's Law: Rule of Law for the New Global Politics, 35 Cornell Int'l L. J. 355 (2002)Google Scholar.

2 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 2004 I.C.J 136 (July 9), at para. 106 [hereinafter Wall case]. See also The Law of Armed Conflict: Problems and Prospects-Chatham House (18-19 April 2005), available at www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/download/-/id/282/file/3918_ilparmedconflict.pdf (last visited August 13, 2007).

3 See, e.g., Kietzmer, David, Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions or Legitimate Means of Defence?, 16 Eur. J. Int'l L. 171 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Borelli, Silvia, Casting Light on the Legal Black Hole: International Law and Detentions Abroad in the “War on Terror,” 857 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 39 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 See Pejic, Jelena, Terrorist Acts and Groups: A Role for International Law?, 75 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L. 71 (2004)Google Scholar; Terrorism and the Military: International Legal Indications (Wypo P. Heere ed., 2003); Dominic McGoldrick, From “9-11” to the “Iraq War 2003”: International Law in An Age of Conplexity (2004); Helen Duffy, The “War On Terror” and the Framework of International Law (2005).

5 Analogous legal issues arise for other states when they have incorporated IHR and IHL obligations via their constitutions or via national implementing legislation. On the Israeli position see Gross, A.M., Human Proportions: Are Human Rights the Emperors New Clothes of the International Law of Occupation, 18 Eur. J. Int'l L. 1–35 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, ETS NO. 155.

7 At the international law level analogous issues arise under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 19, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 [hereinafter ICCPR] to which the UK is a party. The domestic issues are not analogous in the same way because the UK has not incorporated the ICCPR in the way that it has the European Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 [hereinafter ECHR]. See Wilde, Ralph, Legal “Black Hole”? Extraterritorial State Action and International Treaty Law on Civil and Political Rights, 26 Mich. J. Int'l L. 739 (2005)Google Scholar; McGoldrick, Dominic, Extraterritorial Application of the ICCPR, in Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties 41 (Coomans, F. & Kamminga, M.T. eds., 2004)Google Scholar.

8 Human Rights Act, 1998, c. 42 [hereinafter HRA]; see also Human Rights Law and Practice (Lester, A. & Pannick, D. eds., 2nd ed. 2004)Google Scholar.

9 (Emphasis added D. M.) That an applicant be a “victim of a violation” of a Convention right is a separate requirement, see Article 34 ECHR, supra note 7. The same victim requirement is adopted by the HRA, see HRA, supra note 8, at. s 7(7),

10 It is not technically incorporated in the sense of being made part of UK law. See McGoldrick, Dominic, The UK's Human Rights Act in Theory and Practice, 50 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 901 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 See Ross, J., Jurisdictional Aspects of International Human Rights Law and Humanitarian Law in the War on Terror, in Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties 9–24 (Coomans, F. & Kamminga, M.T. eds., 2004)Google Scholar.

12 See Droege, Cordula, International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law: A Legal Framework for Complementarity, 40(2) Isr. L. Rev. 310 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cerone, John, Jurisdiction and Power: The Intersection of Human Rights Law & the Law of Non-International Armed Conflict in an Extraterritorial Context, 40(2) Isr. L. Rev. 396 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Ilaşcu v. Moldova and Russia, 2004-VII Eur. Ct. H. R. 1030 (GC). This case was described by Ovey and White as the “leading case” on the meaning of the term “jurisdiction” in Article 1 ECHR, see Ovey, Clare & White, Robin C.A., Jacobs and White: The European Convention on Human Rights 24 (2006)Google Scholar. As of November 2006, the judgment has still not been implemented by the Russian Federation.

14 Issa v. Turkey, 41 Eur. Ct. H.R. 27 (2004).

15 Cyprus v. Turkey, 2001-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. 1 (GC).

16 The Court did not consider it to be established that there was or is any jurisdictional link between the applicant and States in question, and therefore that the applicant was capable of falling within the jurisdiction of those States, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, Eur. Ct. H.R.: Saddam Hussein v. Albania and others, Appl. no. 23276/04 (given March 14, 2006)(unreported).

17 Ben-Naftali, Orna & Shany, Yuval, Living in Denial: The Application of Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, 37 Isr. L. Rev. 17 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McGoldrick, supra note 7, at 41.

18 … a State party must respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone within the power and effective control of that State Party, even if not situated within the territory of that State Party… This principle … applies … regardless of the circumstances in which such power or effective control was obtained, such as forces constituting a national contingent of a State Party assigned to an international peace-keeping or peace-enforcement operation,

See Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31 [80]: Article 2 of the Covenant: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, ¶ 10, UN Doc. CCPR/C/74/CRP.4/Rev.6 (2004) [hereinafter General Comment No. 31] (emphasis added D.M.).

19 See Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Poland ¶ 3, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/82/POL (Dec. 2, 2004); Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Belgium, ¶ 6, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/81/BEL (Aug. 12, 2004).

20 See Concluding Observations of the Human Right Committee: Germany, ¶ 11, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/80/DEU (May 4, 2004), and see also Germany's reply. Comments by the Government of Germany to the Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Germany, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/80/DEU/Add. 1 (Apr. 4, 2005)(follow-up response by state party).

21 Wall case, supra note 2, at paras. 107-113.

22 ICJ Reports (2005)(Dec. 19, 2005), particularly at paras. 205-21.

23 See in particular Wall case, supra note 2, at paras. 108-11. See also Agora: ICJ Advisory Opinion on Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 99 Am. J. Int'l L. (2005)Google Scholar.

24 Judge Buergenthal's in Wall case dissent was not on this principle; see Declaration Of Judge Buergenthal, supra note 2, at para 2. See also Dennis, Michael J., Application of Human Rights Treaties Extraterritorially in Times of Armed Conflict and Military Occupation, 99 Am. J. Int'l L 119 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dennis, Michael J., Non-Application of Human Rights Treaties Extraterritorially During Times of Armed Conflict, 40(2) Isr. L. Rev. 453 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 See Legality Of The Threat Or Use Of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 226 (July 8) [hereinafter Nuclear Weapons case] which dealt with the issue of the application of IHL and IHR with respect to the right to life; Gowland-Debbas, V., The Right to Life and Genocide: The Court and International Public Policy, in International law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons 315 (de Chazournes, Laurence Boisson & Sands, Philippe eds., 1999)Google Scholar. See also Prud'homme, Nancie, Lex Specialis: Oversimplifying a More Complex and Multifaceted Relationship, 40(2) Isr. L. Rev. 356 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Droege, supra note 12.

26 See Wilde, Ralph, Triggering State Obligations Extraterritorially: Comparing Human Rights Law and the Law of Occupation, 40(2) Isr. L. Rev. 503 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 See Fundamental Rights in Europe: The European Convention on Human Rightsc and its Member States 1950-2000 (Blackburn, Robert & Polakiewicz, Jorg eds., 2001)Google Scholar.

28 See the biannual updates on national implementation of international humanitarian law in the International Review of the Red Cross.

29 See UK Ministry of Defence, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict 435–45 (2004)Google Scholar [hereinafter UK Manual].

30 Id. at 421-35. There are other measures which may be implemented by states to ensure enforcement e.g. via dissemination of knowledge and training, id. at 412-13.

31 Under some of the leading international human rights treaties there is a right to a remedy, see, e.g., Article 13 ECHR, supra note 7; Article 2(3) ICCPR, supra note 7. Effective remedies may require investigation and prosecution It is important for our purposes to note, however, that these provisions have not been interpreted a guaranteeing a right to have another person prosecuted.

32 See Anufrijeva v. Southwark London Borough Council [2003] EWCA (Civ) 1406, [2004] UKHRR 1.

33 See Zegveld, L., Remedies for Victims of Violations of International Humanitarian Law, 851 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 497 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bassiouni, M. Cherif, International Recognition of Victims' Rights, 6(2) Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 203 (2006)Google Scholar.

34 The Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, 28 U.S.C. §1350, according to which district courts in the United States have jurisdiction over torts committed in “violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States” can be viewed as a possible partial exception to this. See Swan, Michael, International Human Rights Tort Claims and the Experience of US Courts: An Introduction to the US Case Law, Key Statutes and Doctrines, in Torture as Tort: Comparative Perspective on the Development of Transnational Human Rights 65, 99–101 (Scott, Craig ed., 2001)Google Scholar.

35 There may be differences in approach depending on whether the IHL issue is one of state responsibility rather than individual criminal responsibility. For example this may explain differences in the jurisprudence of the ICJ and ICTY on whether the appropriate test for responsibility is “effective control” or “overall control,” see Higgins, Rosalyn, A Babel of Judicial Voices? Ruminations from the Bench, 55 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 791, 794–5 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 See Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties, supra note 7; Craven, Matthew, For the “Common Good”: Rights and Interests in the Law of State Responsibility, in Issues of State Responsibility before International Judicial Institutions 105 (Fitzmaurice, Malgosia & Dan Sarooshi, eds., 2004)Google Scholar; Malcom D. Evans, State Responsibility and the European Convention on Human Rights: Role and Realm, id. at 139; Dominic McGoldrick, State Responsibility and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, id. at 161.

37 See Preamble to HRA, supra note 8. See generally Gearty, Conor A., Principles of Human Rights Adjudication (2004)Google Scholar; McGoldrick, supra note 10.

38 Section 1(1) HRA, supra note 8.

39 See HL Deb, vol. 583, col.475 (18 November 1997)(Lord Chancellor).

40 See Kavanagh, Aileen, The Elusive Divide Between Interpretation and Legislation Under the Human Rights Act 1998, 24 Ox. J. Legal Stud. 259 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 For the leading case on ss.3-4 see Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557.

42 See Geneva Conventions Act 1958, No. 19 (NZ) as amended by the Geneva Conventions Amendment Act 1987, No. 144 (NZ) and by the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000, No. 26 (NZ). See also UK Manual, supra note 29, 427-428.

43 In R. v. Jones (Margaret) [2006] UKHL 16, [2006] 2 W.L.R. 772, [2006] 2 All E.R. 741, the court ruled that the crime against peace (or crime of aggression) could not be regarded as a “crime” within the meaning of section 3 of the Criminal Law Act, 1967, c.58 or as an “offence” within the meaning of section 68(2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994, c.33.

44 [2004] EWCA Civ 1344, [2005] QB 643.

45 Id. at para 79. ECHR case law on jurisdiction over acts of consular officers is quite well established.

46 [2005] UKHL 57, [2005] 3 WLR 837.

47 Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Mar. 20, 1952, CETS No. 009

48 This allows for territorial application of the ECHR to be extended to overseas territories. It thus mirrors Article 56, ECHR, supra note 7. The effect is to introduce a territorial limitation into Article 1 ECHR, id. See Jacobs & White, supra note 13, at 32-4.

49 Citing and applying Bui Van Thanh v. United Kingdom (Admissibility)(16137/90)(Unreported, March 12, 1990) and Yonghong v. Portugal (Admissibility) (50887/99)(Unreported, November 25, 1999).

50 Quark Fishing Lid v. Secretary of State, supra note 46, at paras. 33-34 (emphasis added M.D.).

51 For the view that the approach of the UK courts under the HRA on this point has been incorrect see Wilde, Ralph, The Extraterritorial Application of the Human Rights Act, 58 Current Legal Prob. 47, 53–57 (2005)Google Scholar.

52 See, e.g., R (on the Application of European Roma Rights Centre) v. Immigration Officer, Prague Airport [2004] UKHL 55, [2005] UKHRR 530.

53 Al-Skeini v. Sec. of State for Defence [2004] EWHC 2911 (Admin.) [hereinafter Al-Skeini (HC)]; Al-Skeini v. Sec. of State for Defence [2005] EWCA 1609 (Civ.) [hereinafter Al-Skeini (CA)]. See Oliver, Mark, Court Rejects Government Appeal Over Iraqi Death, The Guardian, Dec. 21, 2005 Google Scholar; Fisk, Robert, British Soldiers “Kicked Iraqi Prisoner to Death,” The Independent, Jan. 4, 2004 Google Scholar.

54 The Public Interest Lawyers supported the bringing of the cases. The CA specifically stated that the PIL had, “rendered a valuable public service in bringing forward their clients' claims,” Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, at para. 141.

55 See S.C. Res. 1546, UN Doc. S/RES/1546 (June 8, 2004); Wheatley, Steven, The Security Council, Democratic Legitimacy and Regime Change in Iraq, 17 Eur. J. Int'l L. 531 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, Rix LJ, at para. 11.

57 Id. at judgment of para. 20. For details of the five first incidents see id. at paras. 22-27.

58 Id. at para. 129.

59 Service personnel may only open fire against a person if he/she is committing or about to commit an act likely to endanger life and there is no other way to prevent the danger.

60 In the fourth case an investigation had begun, terminated, and then later reopened, see Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, at para. 25.

61 For details see id. at para. 28-30, and Al-Skeini (HC), supra note 53, at paras. 81-9.

62 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, see especially Sedley LJ, at para 181.

63 Id. at para 191.

64 Id. at para 181. The other members of this court made no reference to this argument but they must have implicitly rejected it.

65 Id. at para. 48.

66 Id. at para. 190.

67 Al-Skeini (HC), supra note 53. On the Divisional Court decision see Altiparmak, Kerem, European Convention on Human Rights: Extraterritorial Application, 69 J. Crim. L. 295 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leach, Philip, The British Military In Iraq—The Applicability of The Espace Juridique Doctrine Under the European Convention on Human Rights, 448 Pub. L. (2005)Google Scholar.

68 Banković v. Belgium, 2001–XII Eur. Ct. H.R. 333 (GC). See O'Boyle, M., The ECHR and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Life After Bankovic, in Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties 125 (Coomans, F. & Kamminga, M.T. eds., 2004)Google Scholar; Altiparmak, supra note 67; Wilde, Ralph, The “Legal Space” Or “Espace Juridique” of The European Convention On Human Rights: Is It Relevant To Extraterritorial State Action, Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 115 (2005)Google Scholar(2); Orakhelashvili, Alexander, Restrictive Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties in the Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, 14 Eur. J. Int'l L. 529 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williams, Sarah & Shah, Sangeeta, Case Comment: Bankovic And Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States, Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. (2002)(6) 775 Google Scholar; Gondek, Michal, Extraterritorial Application of the ECHR: Territorial Focus in the Age of Globalization, Neth. Int'l L. Rev. 349 (2005)Google Scholar.

69 However, the European Court of Human Rights in Issa v. Turkey, supra note 14, found that where effective control does exist, the ECHR could apply outside the Council of Europe. See Divisional Court's discussion of Issa in Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, at paras. 202-222, 262-265, & 277.

70 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, at paras. 301-302 (emphasis added D.M.).

71 Id. at para 306.

72 Id. at paras 318-41.

73 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, Brooke LJ, at para 6. Presumably this concession is also of significance for the UK's equivalent obligations under the ICCPR.

74 Id. at para. 184.

75 Id. at para. 183. On military prisons see also Hess v. UK, 2 Eur. Comm'n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 72 (1975).

76 See the arguments set out in Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, at paras. 31-44.

77 Id. at Brooke LJ, para 8. For a critique of the European Court of Human Rights application of human rights to internal armed conflicts see Abresch, William, A Human Rights Law of Internal Armed Conflict: The European Court of Human Rights in Chechnya, 16 Eur. J. Int'l L. 741 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 See the decision of the Israeli Supreme Court in HCJ 4764/04 Physicians for Human Rights v. The Commander of the IDF Forces in the Gaza Strip [2004] IsrSC 58(5) 385, at para 11 which emphasized that both negative and positive duties are imposed on the military commanders of occupying forces who has “effective control” of an area. One of the complaints in this case related to civilians killings, see id. at paras 34-37.

79 See Watkins, Kenneth, Controlling the Use of Force: A Role for Human Rights Norms in Contemporary Armed Conflict, 98 Am. J. Int'l L. 1 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, Brooke LJ, at para. 79.

81 Id. at paras. 79-80.

82 Id. at para. 81.

83 Id.

84 See McGoldrick, supra note 7; Wilde, supra note 7.

85 Öcalan v. Turkey, Eur. Ct. H.R (GC) Judgment of May 12, 2005, available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=%D6calan&sessionid=1751995&skin=hudoc-en (last visited August 12, 2007).

86 Issa v. Turkey, supra note 14.

87 Saddam Hussein v. Albania and others, supra note 16. Though that case might come within the military prison exception.

88 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, at para 90.

89 Id. citing Issa v. Turkey, supra note 14, at para 71. The final sentence of this paragraph follows the language of the two HRC cases that the European Court cited.

90 Issa v. Turkey, supra note 14, at para 72.

91 See id. at para. 74.

92 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, at paras. 107-08 (emphasis added D.M.).

93 Id. at para 110.

94 Id.

95 Id. at para 112.

96 Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, Oct. 18, 1907, U.S.T.S. 539 [hereinafter The Hague Convention]. The Hague Convention provides that “[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

97 Al-Skeini (CA), note 53, at para 120.

98 Id. at 124-5. See also Wheatley, supra note 55.

99 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, at para. 127.

100 Id. at para. 128.

101 Id. at para. 144. There have been many difficult issues relating to the retrospectivity of the HRA, see Beyleveld, Deryck, Kirkham, Richard, & Townend, David, Which Presumption? A Critique of the House of Lords' Reasoning on Retrospectivity and the Human Rights Act, 22 Legal Stud. 185 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rodger, Lord Alan, A Time for Everything under the Law: Some Reflections on Retrospectivity, 121 L. Q. Rev. 57 (2005)Google Scholar.

102 Citing In re McKerr, [2004] UKHL 12, [2004] 1 WLR 807, at para 25.

103 B. v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, supra note 44.

104 This seems to be a particularly narrow reading of the rationale of the R (B) case, as the issue of violation only arose if the individual was within the jurisdiction of the UK for the purposes of the ECHR.

105 See text accompanying supra note 50.

106 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, at paras. 146-47. The CA considered that it would be better if the HL were to decide whether these dicta were wrong. Richards LJ noted that he had taken a different view on extra-territoriality in Abbasi v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2002] EWCA 1598 (Civ.)(CA), but the competing arguments had become much more sophisticated, that the matter was more finely balanced than it first appeared, and that the right course was to follow the dicta in B and Quark Fishing Ltd v. Secretary of State and leave it to the House of Lords to decide whether those dicta were wrong, Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, at para. 210.

107 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, at para. 188.

108 Eur. Ct. H.R. judgment: Özkan v. Turkey, App. No. 21689/93, (given April 6, 2004), at para. 297, available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=%D6zkan&sessionid=1751995&skin=hudoc-en (last visited August 12, 2007).

109 The CA also cited Lord Bingham's summary of the purposes of the Article 2 procedural obligation in R. (Amin) v. Home Secretary [2003] UKHL 51; [2004] 1 AC 653, at 664-666.

110 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, at para 140.

111 See Section IV, B supra.

112 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, at paras. 150-70.

113 The first two charges were the first to be brought under the International Criminal Court Act, 2001, c. 17. On the ICC and the UK see Turns, D., Aspects of the National Implementation of the Rome Statute: The UK and Selected Other States, in The Permanent International Criminal Court: Legal and Policy Issues 337, 341–53 (McGoldrick, D., Rowe, P., & Donnelly, E. eds., 2004)Google Scholar.

114 Summarized in Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, at para. 177.

115 Id. at para. 178.

116 See Evans, Michael, British Soldier Admits Iraqi War Crime, The Times, Sept. 20, 2006 Google Scholar.

117 See Verkaik, Robert, Soldier Acquitted of Beating Iraqi Suspects in Basra, The Independent, Jan. 23, 2007 Google Scholar.

118 See Tweedie, Neil, Uproar Over “War Crimes” Trials, The Telegraph, July 21, 2005 Google Scholar.

119 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, at para. 193, citing Banković v. Belgium, supra note 68 (emphasis added by Sedley LJ).

120 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, Sedley LJ, at para 195. On Article 43 of the Hague Regulations see Sassòli, Marco, Legislation and the Maintenance of Public Order and Civil Life by Occupying Powers, 16 Eur. J. Int'l L. 661 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

121 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, at para. 196 (emphasis added D.M.).

122 Id. at para. 197.

123 It has been submitted above that the espace juridique point was not central in Banković. See part VI, B supra.

124 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, Sedley LJ, at para. 200 citing-Banković, supra note 68, at para 73.

125 Id. at para 201.

126 See Quark Fishing Ltd. v. Secretary of State, supra note 46.

127 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, Sedley LJ, at para. 204.

128 Al-Skeini (CA), supra note 53, at para 208.

129 Note that Article 15 (2) ECHR, supra note 7 permits derogation form Article 2 ECHR (right to life) “in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war.” No such derogation has ever been made.

130 See the written answers provided by Jack Straw, then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to the UK House of Commons, 421 HC Debs (2003-04) cols. 674w-675w (17 May 2004)(“the Government's position is that ECHR rights have no application in Iraq”) and col. 1084w (19 May 2004)(“The citizens of Iraq had no rights at all under the ECHR prior to military action by the coalition forces; furthermore, the UK does not exercise the same degree of control over Iraq as existed in relation to the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus”).

131 Al-Skeini v. Sec. of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26, [2007] 3 All E.R. 865 [hereinafter Al-Skeini (HL)].

132 See http://www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/law_international/human_rights.php (last visited July 20, 2007); Chagtai, Nusrat, Iraq and the Legal Space of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1 Kurdish Hum. Rts. Project L. Rev. 77 (2005)Google Scholar.

133 The dissenter was Lord Bingham, the Senior Law Lord.

134 The Divisional Court will decide whether the recent court martial of seven British soldiers was sufficient to satisfy the Government's obligations, or whether there needs to be a full public inquiry.

135 Al-Skeini (HL), supra note 131, at para. 107.

136 See Issa v. Turkey, supra note 14, at para. 71.

137 Al-Skeini (HL), supra note 131, Lord Brown, at para 124-31.

138 Id. at para 129. See also his comments on Article 56 ECHR, at paras. 111-14.

139 Al-Skeini (HL), supra note 131, at paras. 62-83, 90-2, 97 respectively.

140 Al-Skeini (HL), supra note 131, Lord Rodger, at para. 67.

141 Cited in text, supra note 88.

142 Al-Skeini (HL), supra note 131, Lord Rodger, at para. 75.

143 Id. at paras. 76-81.

144 Al-Skeini (HL), supra note 131, Lord Carswell, at para. 97.

145 Al-Skeini (HL), supra note 131, Lord Bingham.

146 Id. at para 31.

147 Al-Skeini (HL), supra note 131, Lord Rodger, at paras. 38-42. Baroness Hale agreed that there was an important difference between the legal system to which any Act of Parliament extended and the people and conduct to which it applied, para. 86.

148 Citing Lord Hope in Cantlow, text to supra note 50.

149 See supra note 46. Lord Brown considered that it could not be considered to be a reliable authority on the point in issue but that its comments on the co-extensiveness of the ECHR and the HRA were noteworthy. He considered the decision in B, supra note 44, to be more directly in point, paras. 143-4.

150 Al-Skeini (HL), supra note 131, at paras. 34-59.

151 See id. at paras. 86-88, 96 and 133-52 respectively.

152 See id. at para. 96 (Lord Carswell) and para. 150 (Lord Brown).

153 Al-Skeini (HL), supra note 131, at paras. 147-8.

154 Id. at paras. 8-26.

155 See also the important decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court in Behrami and Behrami v. France, App. no. 71412/01 (not published) and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway, Appl. no. 78166/01 (not published)(European Court of Human Rights was not competent to examine under the ECHR States' contribution to the relevant civil and security presence exercising control of Kosovo (May 31, 2007).

156 See supra Part IV, F.

157 [2006] EWCA 327 (Civ.). For the judgment in the Divisional Court see [2005] EWHC 1809 (Admin.). At both levels very sophisticated international law arguments were deployed, particularly on the requirements under Article 78 of the Geneva Convention [IV] Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287. There is not space to pay justice to those arguments but they deserve close attention. See Johnston, James, IHL -v- Human Rights: The Al Jedda Case and Issues Arising From An Operational Perspective, in International Humanitarian Law and the 20th Century's Conflicts—Changes and Challenges (Cohen, Roberta & Hillbrand, Pierre-Antoine eds., 2nd ed. forthcoming, 2007)Google Scholar.

158 See Cassimatis, Anthony E., International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law, and the Fragmentation of International Law, 56 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 623, 653–7 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

159 See supra note 157, at para. 98. In both decisions the main opinion was given by Brooke LJ.

160 R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3) [1999] 2 All ER 97, in which the court denied immunity for a former head of state who was charged with torture.

161 See U.N. I. L. C., Study Group of the International Law Commission, Koskenniemi, Martii, Fragmentation Of International Law: Difficulties Arising From The Diversification And Expansion Of International Law, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 (April 13, 2006)Google Scholar; Cassimatis, supra note 158.