The Law of Nations
  • Home
  • About
  • Public International Law
  • Private International Law
  • Arbitration
  • Podcasts
  • Contact Us
Public International Law 0

A big day for international law in the Supreme Court

The Court hands down three long-awaited judgments

By Legal Support Service · On January 18, 2017


Yesterday the Supreme Court handed down, as its first three judgments of 2017, decisions in three cases which were long overdue (as we noted in our round-up of 2016):

  1. Rahmatullah (No 2) v Ministry of Defence; Mohammed v Ministry of Defence [2017] UKSC 1 [Judgment; press release]
  2. Al-Waheed v Ministry of Defence; Serdar Mohammed v Ministry of Defence [2017] UKSC 2 [Judgment; press release]
  3. Belhaj v Straw; Rahmatullah (No. 1) v Ministry of Defence [2017] UKSC 3 [Judgment; press release]

Each of the cases involves allegations of wrongful acts by UK armed forces or government officials in the context of military operations or so-called ‘rendition’ to torture, or alleged complicity by the UK in the wrongful acts of other States.

These are three immensely important decisions on the application of various aspects of international law in the domestic courts, and this blog and others will analyse them in detail in the coming weeks (see initial posts by the UKSCblog and EJIL:Talk!). As an initial summary:

Rahmatullah (No 2)

This case concerns a number of claims brought against the UK Government by people who claim to have been wrongfully detained or mistreated by UK or US forces during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. These included tort claims, based on Iraqi or Afghan law. The Government argued that the doctrine of ‘Crown act of state’ is a defence to a tort claim arising out of the UK’s conduct of foreign affairs. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that, in so far as the tort claims were based on acts of a governmental nature in the conduct of foreign military operations, the ‘Crown act of state’ doctrine applies and the Government cannot be held liable in tort. This is a much broader interpretation of the act of state doctrine than the decision of Legatt J at first instance.

Al-Waheed and Serdar Mohammed

This case concerns the detention of individuals in Iraq and Afghanistan following their capture by British armed forces. The Court decision is by a majority of 7 to 2. The majority decided that it was unnecessary to express a concluded view on whether customary international law permits the detention of combatants in a non-international armed conflict. They considered that, whatever the answer to that question, authority to detain was conferred implicitly by the relevant Security Council resolutions. In a complex analysis of the relationship between Security Council resolutions and Article 5 of the ECHR (the right to liberty), the majority held that there was legal authority for the UK armed forces to detain prisoners for more than 96 hours if this was necessary for imperative reasons of security, but that the procedures for doing so did not comply with Article 5(4) because they did not give a detained person an effective right to challenge his or her detention.

Belhaj v Straw; Rahmatullah (No 1) v Ministry of Defence

Both claimants allege that UK officials were complicit in their unlawful detention, torture and mistreatment at the hands of foreign authorities: in Libya in Mr Belhaj’s case, and in Afghanistan in Mr Rahmatullah’s case. The Government argued that the claims are barred by the doctrines of state immunity and/or ‘foreign act of state’, because in order to decide the cases, the English courts would have to decide on the legality of the acts of foreign States. The Court unanimously found against the Government, on the basis that:

  1. State immunity did not apply: the foreign States were not parties to the proceedings in the UK and were not affected in any legal sense by the claims, despite the fact that they could lead to harm to their reputation. State immunity is not broad enough to cover cases where a claimant alleges wrongful conduct by a foreign State if he or she does not seek to make that State a party to the case.
  2. Nor did the doctrine of foreign act of state: in so far as any of the various strands of the doctrine potentially applied to the alleged facts, the doctrine is subject to an important public policy exception where fundamental rights are engaged, including the prohibition on torture.

Legal Support Service

Legal Support Service

The Legal Support Service provide research and paralegal support to Matrix members – whether by finding legal information (cases, legislation, articles, reports etc), producing bundles of authorities for court, or carrying out more substantial research. They also collate daily current awareness bulletins, covering Matrix’s major areas of practice, manage our intranet and extranets and administer the freelance research panel.




You Might Also Like

  • Human Rights

    Why depriving Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship breaches international law

  • Public International Law

    Review of the year: top ten international law cases of 2018

  • Public International Law

    Do Ministers have to comply with international law? Court of Appeal looks at legal challenge

No Comments

Leave a reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mailing List

Sign up to our Mailing List

Categories

  • Arbitration
  • Book Review
  • Brexit
  • Business and Human Rights
  • Comparative Law
  • Constitutional Law
  • Criminal Law
  • Environmental Law
  • From the editors
  • Human Rights
  • International Trade
  • News Round-up
  • Podcasts
  • Private International Law
  • Public International Law
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • November 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016

From Twitter

  • New post: why depriving Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship violates international law. https://t.co/I51X5qT8um… https://t.co/FF0p3hqE8Q

© Matrix Chambers. All rights reserved. | Accessibility | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy