Source: https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/united-kingdom-case-serdar-mohammed-court-appeal-and-supreme-court-judgments
Timestamp: 2019-11-11 21:09:03
Document Index: 347755842

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 21', 'Art. 42', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 4', 'Arts 42', 'Art. 42', 'Art. 21', 'Art. 78', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Arts 21', 'Arts 42', 'Arts 43']

United Kingdom, The Case of Serdar Mohammed (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Judgments) | How does law protect in war? - Online casebook
The judgments discussed in this case followed on from the initial case United Kingdom, The Case of Serdar Mohammed (High Court Judgment).
[Source: Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Civ 843, Case Nos: A2/2014/1862; A2/2014/4084; A2/2014/4086, In the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2 LL, date 30/07/2015, before: The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Lord Justice Lloyd Jones and Lord Justice Beatson, between: Serdar Mohammed & Others and Secretary of State for Defence, and between Yunus Rahmatullah & the Iraqi Civilian Claimants and Ministry of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Office, available at: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/mohammed-and-others-v-secretary-of-state-for-defence-rahmatullah-v-mod/ (footnotes omitted)]
[Source: Hilary Term [2017], UKSC 2, On appeals from: [2014] EWHC 2714 (QB) and [2015] EWCA Civ 843, JUDGMENT, Abd Ali Hameed Al-Waheed (Appellant) v Ministry of Defence (Respondent), Serdar Mohammed (Respondent) v Ministry of Defence (Appellant), 17 January 2017, available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2014-0219.html (footnotes omitted)]
4. If it is a NIAC, what are the IHL treaty rules that apply? Are these rules applicable to the UK in Afghanistan? If not, are they applicable as customary international law? (GV I-IV, Art. 3; P II, Art. 1)
a. What is the principle of lex specialis? On the basis of which arguments can IHL be considered the lex specialis applicable in armed conflicts? What are the submissions of the Secretary of State? How does Justice Leggatt reject the Secretary of State’s submissions that IHL is the lex specialis? Does the Hassan judgment change the Court of Appeal’s conclusion?
13. (Document A, para. 162) Do you agree with the Court’s reasoning that, if detention under the Geneva Conventions in an IAC can constitute a ground for detention compatible with Article 5 ECHR (see Hassan), then detention under a UNSC Resolution could also be compatible with Article 5? Can the ECHR be displaced by a UNSC Resolution according to article 103 of the UN Charter? (See ECtHR, Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom, Judgment, 7 July 2011, paras 100 – 109)
15. What IHL rules apply in detention in IACs and NIACs? In IAC, does IHL provide rules as to the grounds and procedures under which a person may be detained? What about NIACs? If there are no such rules, does IHL still regulate the treatment of detainees? (GC III, Art. 21 and 118; GC IV, Art. 42, 78, 132 and 133; GC I-IV, Art. 3; P II, Art. 4, 5 and 6)
16. (Document B, paras. 58 – 66) Do you agree with the Supreme Court finding that the difference between GC IV, Arts 42 and 78 lays in the fact that “internment in an Occupied Territory may be necessary for the security of those interned”? Why? (GC IV, Art. 42 and 78)
b. How does the Supreme Court assess the main distinction between the legal regime governing detention in IACs and its applicability in NIACs? Why did States not make provision in the Geneva Conventions for authority to detain in NIACs? Does IHL apply equally to States and armed groups in NIACs? (GC III, Art. 21; GC IV, Art. 78; GC I-IV, Art. 3)
18. (Document A, paras 197 – 204, 214 – 219; Document B, paras 256 – 273) What are the arguments, as summarized by the Supreme Court’s dissenting Judge Lord Reed, to support the view that detention in NIACs is authorized by IHL? And the arguments contrary to that view? What does Lord Reed conclude on the issue? Is there a need to show a positive power to detain, or does the absence of a prohibition suffice to give authority to detain? Under IHL alone? Under IHRL? Is the power to detain in NIACs implied in the language of GC I-IV, Art. 3 and P II? Which view does the ICRC support? Is the ICRC’s view binding? Why? Why not?
20. (Document A, paras 217 – 218, 242; Document B, para. 17) If we accept that there is an implied power to detain in treaty rules of NIAC, what grounds and procedures must be respected? Does IHL of NIAC provide such rules? Can we apply the provisions of IHL of IAC by analogy? If yes, which IHL provisions of IAC should apply? Only the provisions of GC IV, or those of GC III? (GC III, Arts 21 and 118; GC IV, Arts 42, 78, 132 and 133)
22. (Document A, paras 237 – 241) Does the customary principle of distinction imply a fortiori a power to detain for security reasons in NIAC? Does the ICRC and do commentators support this view? How does Court of Appeal handle this argument? (CIHL, Rule 1)
a. Which procedural guarantees do civilian internees benefit from under IHL? Are there similar provisions for POWs? Why? Why not? In the opinion of the Supreme Court? (GC IV, Arts 43 and 78)
ICRC, IHL and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts