The Law of Nations
  • Home
  • About
  • Public International Law
  • Private International Law
  • Arbitration
  • Podcasts
  • Contact Us
Public International Law 1

Where now for international law in the domestic courts?

Lessons learned from the three recent landmark judgments of the UK Supreme Court

By Rachael Aitken · On February 23, 2017


On Monday, Matrix hosted a seminar discussing the three landmark judgments handed down by the Supreme Court on the 17th of January this year:

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

All three judgments concern the liability of the UK government for allegedly tortious acts committed (a) in the course of overseas operations by HM Forces, or (b) by foreign governments, with the complicity of UK officials. Richard Hermer QC, Phillippa Kaufmann QC and Edward Craven, who appeared as counsel, discussed the effect of these judgments on the doctrines of foreign act of state, on crown act of state, and on the relationship between domestic, convention and international law.

The doctrine of foreign act of state

The panel discussed the reluctance of Lord Neuberger in his judgment in Belhaj to prescribe definitively the scope of the doctrine of foreign act of state. What emerges from his judgment is that the doctrine may apply to unilateral sovereign acts conducted outside the territory of the foreign state, but that the doctrine will “almost always” only apply to acts outside the territory of the foreign state where actions involve more than one state. The involvement of different states does not inevitably mean that the doctrine applies, but “some sort of comparatively formal, relatively high level arrangement” may indicate that it does.

the majority judgments provide little clear rationale for the seemingly wide application of the doctrine

The panel noted that the majority judgments provide little clear rationale for the seemingly wide application of the doctrine as a bar to tortious claims. This is particularly so when considering that UK judges will adjudicate upon foreign acts such as torture within the forum of the First Tier Tribunal in asylum and immigration claims. The lack of a clear rationale provided in the judgment, combined with non-prescriptive principles as to when an act will fall within the doctrine, leaves us in arguably no clearer a position as to when domestic courts are exempt from adjudicating upon the legality of foreign sovereign and inter-state activities.

The doctrine of crown act of state

In Rahmatullah (No 2), the scope of the doctrine of crown act of state was defined in equally open-ended terms. In her judgment, Lady Hale stated that the doctrine applies to acts which are “in their nature sovereign acts – the sorts of thing that governments properly do; committed abroad; in the conduct of the foreign policy of the state; so closely connected to the policy to be necessary in pursuing it.” Lady Hale noted that this leaves a very narrow class of acts, which at least extends to the conduct of lawful military operations, but declined to state the full extent or limit of the doctrine’s application.

The panel discussed the questions which this judgment has now raised:

  1. Is the principle of crown act of state necessary in the tort context, considering that there is no such bar to human rights claims?
  2. Does the doctrine have the potential to apply beyond military operations which are lawful under international law? For instance, does it apply to the mistreatment of detainees if this has been authorised by a foreign state’s policy?
  3. Could the doctrine be better characterised as two separate doctrines, one as a rule of justiciability, and the other as a defence to tortious claims?

The relationship between domestic, ECHR and international law

In Al-Waheed, the majority found that Security Council Resolutions 1546 and 1386 could be interpreted as implicitly authorising detention falling outside article 5(1)(a) to (f) of the ECHR. The panel explained that the judgment has gone beyond Al-Jedda [2011] ECHR 1092, in which letters annexed to a Security Council Resolution explicitly authorised detention in circumstances other than those outlined in article 5(1)(a) to (f). Further, the judgment goes beyond Hassan v United Kingdom (2014) 38 BHRC 358, which limited a modified reading of article 5 of the ECHR to accommodate international humanitarian law applicable during international armed conflict. The judgment in Al-Waheed has now set a precedent that a Security Council Resolution, without explicit wording, nonetheless has the potential to ‘override’ a Convention right, even in non-international armed conflict.

The panel noted that we cannot ignore the political context in which the judgment in Al–Waheed was handed down, given that the case was identified by Theresa May as a reason why the Human Rights Act 1998 should be repealed.

Rachael Aitken

Rachael is currently a pupil barrister at the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, and has spent her first six months on secondment as a trainee at Matrix. Interested in public and human rights law, before coming to the Bar she worked as a research assistant, involved in compiling a resource database for organisations concerned with the equality and human rights impacts of public spending cuts.




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

1 Comment

  • Frederich H says: April 27, 2019 at 10:56 pm

    Beautifully written.

    Reply
  • 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