Source: http://www.ipsofactoj.com/DecidedCases/international/2008/part06/int2008(06)-001.htm
Timestamp: 2017-09-24 21:16:01
Document Index: 655450186

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 6', 'Application Nos 71412', 'UKHL ', 'Application Nos 71412', 'Application Nos 71412', 'UKHL ', 'Art.24', 'Art.25', 'Art.41', 'Art.42', 'Art.103', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 42', 'Art.78', 'Art.43']

Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence [HL]
IpsofactoJ.com: International Cases [2008] Part 6 Case 1 [HL]
The appellant has not been charged with any offence, and no charge or trial is in prospect. He was arrested and has since been detained on the ground that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security in Iraq. He was suspected of being a member of a terrorist group involved in weapons smuggling and explosive attacks in Iraq. He was believed by the British authorities to have been personally responsible for recruiting terrorists outside Iraq with a view to the commission of atrocities there; for facilitating the travel into Iraq of an identified terrorist explosives expert; for conspiring with that explosives expert to conduct attacks with improvised explosive devices against coalition forces in the areas around Fallujah and Baghdad; and for conspiring with the explosives expert and members of an Islamist terrorist cell in the Gulf to smuggle high tech detonation equipment into Iraq for use in attacks against coalition forces. These allegations are roundly denied by the appellant, and they have not been tested in any proceedings. Nor is their correctness an issue in these proceedings. The House must therefore resolve the legal issues falling for decision on the assumption that the allegations are true, without forming any judgment whether they are or not.
In the courts below the appellant’s Human Rights Act argument was directed to a single question, turning essentially on the relationship between article 5(1) of the European Convention on the one hand and the United Nations Charter, and certain resolutions of the UN Security Council, on the other. More specifically, this question is agreed to be whether the provisions of article 5(1) of the Convention are qualified by the legal regime established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution (“UNSCR”) 1546 (and subsequent resolutions) by reason of the operation of articles 25 and 103 of the UN Charter, such that the detention of the appellant has not been in violation of article 5(1). This is the issue which the courts below decided against the appellant, and it remains an issue dividing the parties. But it is now the second issue. For the Secretary of State, prompted (it seems) by the admissibility decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Behrami v France, Saramati v France, Germany and Norway (Application Nos 71412/01 and 78166/01 (unreported), 2 May 2007) has raised an entirely new issue, not ventilated in the courts below, directed to the attributability in international law of the conduct of which the appellant complains. As agreed, the issue is “whether, by reason of the provisions of UNSCR 1511 (2003) and/or UNSCR 1546 (2004), and/or UNSCR 1637 (2005) and/or UNSCR 1723 (2006) and/or (so far as it may be relevant) UNSCR 1483 (2003), the detention of the appellant is attributable to the United Nations and thus outside the scope of the ECHR". The Secretary of State, relying strongly on Behrami and Saramati, contends that the appellant’s detention is attributable to the UN, a contention which (if correct) defeats his claim under article 5. This has been treated as the first issue in this appeal.
It was common ground between the parties that the governing principle is that expressed by the International Law Commission in article 5 of its draft articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (adopted in May 2004 and cited by the European Court in Behrami and Saramati, para 30):
Conduct of organs or agents placed at the disposal of an international organization by a state or another international organization.
When an organ of a state is placed at the disposal of an international organization, the organ may be fully seconded to that organization. In this case the organ’s conduct would clearly be attributable only to the receiving organization .... Article 5 deals with the different situation in which the lent organ or agent still acts to a certain extent as organ of the lending state or as organ or agent of the lending organization. This occurs for instance in the case of military contingents that a state placed at the disposal of the [UN] for a peacekeeping operation, since the state retains disciplinary powers and criminal jurisdiction over the members of the national contingent. In this situation the problem arises whether a specific conduct of the lent organ or agent has to be attributed to the receiving organization or to the lending state or organization ....
Practice relating to peacekeeping forces is particularly significant in the present context because of the control that the contributing state retains over disciplinary matters and criminal affairs. This may have consequences with regard to attribution of conduct ....
As has been held by several scholars, when an organ or agent is placed at the disposal of an international organization, the decisive question in relation to attribution of a given conduct appears to be who has effective control over the conduct in question.
Invited by the ILC to comment on the attribution of the conduct of peacekeeping forces to the UN or to contributing states, the UN Secretariat responded (A/CN.4/545, 25 June 2004, pp 17-18):
The question of attribution of the conduct of a peacekeeping force to the United Nations or to contributing states is determined by the legal status of the force, the agreements between the United Nations and contributing states and their opposability to third states.
The United Nations will be responsible for dealing with any claims by third parties where the loss of or damage to their property, or death or personal injury, was caused by the personnel or equipment provided by the Government in the performance of services or any other activity or operation under this memorandum. However if the loss, damage, death or injury arose from gross negligence or wilful misconduct of the personnel provided by the Government, the Government will be liable for such claims.
[A/51/967.annex]
The principle of attribution of the conduct of a peacekeeping force to the United Nations is premised on the assumption that the operation in question is conducted under United Nations command and control, and thus has the legal status of a United Nations subsidiary organ. In authorized chapter VII operations conducted under national command and control, the conduct of the operation is imputable to the state or states conducting the operation. In joint operations, namely, those conducted by a United Nations peacekeeping operation and an operation conducted under national or regional command and control, international responsibility lies where effective command and control is vested and practically exercised (see paras 17-18 of the Secretary-General’s report A/51/389).
The international responsibility of the United Nations for combat-related activities of the United Nations forces is premised on the assumption that the operation in question is under the exclusive command and control of the United Nations. Where a Chapter VII-authorized operation is conducted under national command and control, international responsibility for the activities of the force is vested in the state or states conducting the operation. The determination of responsibility becomes particularly difficult, however, in cases where a state or states provide the United Nations with forces in support of a United Nations operation but not necessarily as an integral part thereof, and where operational command and control is unified or coordinated. This was the case in Somalia where the Quick Reaction Force and the US Rangers were provided in support of the United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II), and this was also the case in the former Yugoslavia where the Rapid Reaction Force was provided in support of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR).
In joint operations, international responsibility for the conduct of the troops lies where operational command and control is vested according to the arrangements establishing the modalities of cooperation between the state or states providing the troops and the United Nations. In the absence of formal arrangements between the United Nations and the state or states providing troops, responsibility would be determined in each and every case according to the degree of effective control exercised by either party in the conduct of the operation.
In the event that a certain conduct, which a member state takes in compliance with a request on the part of an international organization, appears to be in breach of an international obligation both of that state and of that organization, would the organization also be regarded as responsible under international law? Would the answer be the same if the state’s wrongful conduct was not requested, but only authorized by the organization?
As for the third question raised by the commission, we are not aware of any situation where the Organization was held jointly or residually responsible for an unlawful act by a state in the conduct of an activity or operation carried out at the request of the Organization or under its authorization. In the practice of the Organization, however, a measure of accountability was nonetheless introduced in the relationship between the Security Council and member states conducting an operation under Security Council authorization, in the form of periodic reports to the Council on the conduct of the operation. While the submission of these reports provides the Council with an important ‘oversight tool', the Council itself or the United Nations as a whole cannot be held responsible for an unlawful act by the state conducting the operation, for the ultimate test of responsibility remains ‘effective command and control'.
On 20 March 2003 coalition forces invaded Iraq. It is, as Brooke LJ observed in paragraph 15 of his judgment, “well known that the Coalition Forces invaded Iraq in the spring of 2003 after the abandonment of the efforts to obtain a further Security Council resolution which would give immediate backing to what the coalition states wished to do if Saddam Hussein did not comply with the Council’s demands". On 16 April 2003 General Franks, a US general, issued a “freedom message” in which he announced the creation of the Coalition Provisional Authority (“the CPA”), a civilian administration which would exercise powers of government in Iraq for the time being. Major combat operations were declared to be complete on 1 May 2003, although hostilities did not end on that date in all parts of the country. As from that date the US and the UK became occupying powers, within the meaning of Section III of the Hague Regulations on the Laws and Customs of War on land (1907) and the Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949) in the areas which they respectively occupied.
On 8 May 2003 the Permanent Representatives of the UK and the US at the UN addressed a joint letter to the President of the Security Council. In it they said that the states participating in the coalition would strictly abide by their obligations under international law, including those relating to the essential humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people; that the US, the UK and their coalition partners, acting under existing command and control arrangements through the commander of coalition forces, had created the CPA; that the US, the UK and their coalition partners, working through the CPA, should among other things provide for security in and for the provisional administration of Iraq; that they would facilitate the efforts of the Iraqi people to take the first steps towards forming a representative government based on the rule of law; and that the UN had a vital role to play in providing humanitarian relief, in supporting the reconstruction of Iraq and in helping in the formation of an Iraqi interim authority. On 13 May 2003 the US Secretary for Defence, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, appointed Mr. Paul Bremer to be administrator of the CPA, which was divided into regions, that in the south being under British control. The CPA promptly set about the business of government. By CPA Regulation No 1, dated 16 May 2003, the CPA assumed “all executive, legislative and judicial authority necessary to achieve its objectives, to be exercised under relevant UN Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 1483 (2003), and the laws and usages of war". Iraqi laws, unless suspended or replaced by the CPA, were to continue to apply insofar as they did not prevent the CPA from exercising its rights and fulfilling its obligations, or conflict with regulations or orders issued by the CPA. CPA Memorandum No 3 (CPA/MEM/27 June 2004/03) addressed issues of criminal procedure. In section 6(4) it referred to standards “in accordance with .... the Fourth Geneva Convention", which were to apply to all persons who were detained by coalition forces when necessary for imperative reasons of security, providing a right of appeal by an internee to a competent body.
Resolution 1483 was adopted by the Security Council on 22 May 2003. The resolution opened, as is usual, with a number of recitals, one of which referred to the US and UK Permanent Representatives’ letter of 8 May “recognizing the specific authorities, responsibilities, and obligations under applicable international law of these states as occupying powers under unified command (‘the Authority’)". Then, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Council called on the Authority, consistently with the UN Charter and other relevant international law, to promote the welfare of the Iraqi people and work towards the restoration of conditions of stability and security. The Council called upon all concerned to comply fully with their obligations under international law, including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907. The Council further requested the Secretary General to appoint a Special Representative in Iraq: he was to report regularly to the Council on his activities under the resolution, which were to co-ordinate the activities of the UN and other international agencies engaged in post-conflict processes and humanitarian assistance, in a number of specified ways including the protection of human rights. The Council decided, as it did consistently thereafter, to remain seised of the matter. In July 2003 an Iraqi Governing Council (“IGC”) was established, which the CPA was to consult on all matters concerning the temporary governance of Iraq.
Pursuant to UNSCR 1483 the Secretary General established a United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), a step welcomed by the Council in Resolution 1500 of 14 August 2003. This development was foreshadowed by the Secretary General in a report dated 17 July, in which he announced the appointment of Mr. de Mello as his Special Representative and outlined the tasks which UNAMI was to undertake.
On 16 October 2003 the Security Council adopted Resolution 1511. Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Council looked forward to the assumption of governmental powers by the people of Iraq and resolved that the UN, through the Secretary General, his Special Representative and UNAMI “should strengthen its vital role in Iraq, including by providing humanitarian relief, promoting the economic reconstruction of and conditions for sustainable development in Iraq, and advancing efforts to restore and establish national and local institutions for representative government". The Secretary General was to report to the Security Council on his responsibilities under the resolution. In a new departure, the Council determined
“that the provision of security and stability is essential to the successful completion of the political process…and to the ability of the United Nations to contribute effectively to that process and the implementation of resolution 1483 (2003), and authorizes a multinational force ["MNF"] under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq, including for the purpose of ensuring necessary conditions for the implementation of the timetable and programme as well as to contribute to the security of [UNAMI], the Governing Council of Iraq and other institutions of the Iraqi interim administration, and key humanitarian and economic infrastructure".
Chronologically, the next events to be noted are two letters, each dated 5 June 2004 and written to the President of the Security Council by the Prime Minister of the Interim Government of Iraq (Dr Allawi) and the US Secretary of State (Mr. Powell). Dr Allawi looked forward to the establishment of a free and democratic Iraq, but stressed that security and stability continued to be essential to the country’s political transition, and asked for the support of the Security Council and the international community until Iraq could provide its own security. He sought a new resolution on the multinational force mandate to contribute to maintaining security in Iraq, “including through the tasks and arrangements set out in the letter” from Mr. Powell to the President of the Council. Mr. Powell in his letter recognised the request of Dr Allawi’s government for the continued presence of the multinational force in Iraq and confirmed that the force, under unified command, was prepared to continue to contribute to the maintenance of security in Iraq. He continued, using language plainly drawn from article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (although the period of occupation was about to end):
He regarded the existing framework governing responsibility for exercise of jurisdiction by contributing states over their military personnel as sufficient, and assured the President that “the forces that make up the MNF are and will remain committed at all times to act consistently with their obligations under the law of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions".
These letters were the immediate prelude to Resolution 1546, adopted by the Security Council on 8 June 2004. Little turns on the opening recitals, save that the Council welcomed the assurances in Mr. Powell’s letter and determined that the situation in Iraq continued to constitute a threat to international peace and security. Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Council described the role of UNAMI, reaffirmed its authorisation under UNSCR 1511 (2003) for the multinational force under unified command, having regard to the annexed letters of Dr Allawi and Mr. Powell, and decided
that the multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in accordance with the letters annexed to this resolution expressing, inter alia, the Iraqi request for the continued presence of the multinational force and setting out its tasks, including by preventing and deterring terrorism, so that, inter alia, the United Nations can fulfil its role in assisting the Iraqi people as outlined in paragraph seven above and the Iraqi people can implement freely and without intimidation the timetable and programme for the political process and benefit from reconstruction and rehabilitation activities; ....
On 27 June 2004 the CPA issued a revised order giving members of the multinational force and the CPA general immunity from Iraqi process, and providing that they should be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their sending states. On the following day power was formally transferred to the Iraqi interim government, the CPA was dissolved and the occupation of Iraq by coalition forces came to an end. Such was the position when the appellant was taken into British custody in October 2004.
After this date there were two further resolutions of the Security Council (Resolution 1637 of 8 November 2005 and Resolution 1723 of 28 November 2006), to which, however, little significance was, rightly, attached. Their effect was to maintain the status quo. The appellant drew attention to reports made by the Secretary General to the Security Council which expressed concern about persons detained by units of the multinational force in a manner inconsistent, it was said, with any suggestion that this was, in international law, the responsibility of the UN. Thus, for instance, on 7 June 2005 (S/2005/373, para 72) the Secretary General reported that 6000 detainees were in the custody of the multinational force and despite the release of some detainees numbers continued to grow. He commented: “Prolonged detention without access to lawyers and courts is prohibited under international law, including during states of emergency". Such observations were echoed in reports by UNAMI which, in its report on the period 1 July – 31 August 2005, para 12, expressed concern about the high number of persons detained, observing that “Internees should enjoy all the protections envisaged in all the rights guaranteed by international human rights conventions". In its next report (1 September – 31 October 2005) it repeated this expression of concern (para 6), and advised “There is an urgent need to provide [a] remedy to lengthy internment for reasons of security without adequate judicial oversight". The appellant pointed out that, according to an answer given by the armed forces minister in the House of Commons on 10 November 2004, UK forces in Iraq were operating under UNSCR 1546 and were not engaged on UN operations: Hansard (HC Debates), 10 November 2004, col 720W. A similar view, it was suggested, was taken by the Working Group of the UN’s Human Rights Council (A/HRC/4/40/Add.1) which considered the position of Mr. Tariq Aziz and, in paragraph 25 of its opinion on the case, stated:
The Working Group concludes that until 1 July 2004, Mr. Tariq Aziz had been detained under the sole responsibility of the Coalition members as occupying powers or, to be more precise, under the responsibility of the United States Government. Since then and as the Iraqi Criminal Tribunal is a court of the sovereign State of Iraq, the pre-trial detention of a person charged before the tribunal is within the responsibility of Iraq. In the light of the fact that Mr. Aziz is in the physical custody of the United States authorities, any possible conclusion as to the arbitrary nature of his deprivation of liberty may involve the international responsibility of the United States Government.
As already indicated, the Secretary of State founds his non-attributability argument on the judgment of the European Court, sitting as a Grand Chamber, in Behrami and Saramati, which related to events in Kosovo. The case concerned Resolution 1244, adopted by the Security Council on 10 June 1999. In the recitals to the resolution, the Council welcomed the statement of principles adopted to resolve the Kosovo crisis on 6 May 1999, which formed annex 1 to the resolution, and welcomed also the acceptance by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of the first nine points in a statement of principles which formed annex 2 to the resolution. Annex 1 provided, among other things, for the “Deployment in Kosovo of effective international civil and security presences, endorsed and adopted by the United Nations, capable of guaranteeing the achievement of the common objectives.” Annex 2 provided for the “Deployment in Kosovo under United Nations auspices of effective international civil and security presences, acting as may be decided under Chapter VII of the Charter, capable of guaranteeing the achievement of common objectives". The international security presence with substantial NATO participation was to be deployed under unified command and control. The international civil presence was to include an interim administration. Having determined that the situation in the region continued to constitute a threat to international peace and security, and acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Council determined on “the deployment in Kosovo, under United Nations auspices, of international civil and security presences ....” A Special Representative appointed by the Secretary General was to control the implementation of the international civil presence and coordinate its activities with those of the international security presence. Member states and relevant international organisations were authorised to establish the international security presence whose responsibilities were to include, among other things, supervising de-mining until the international civil presence could, as appropriate, take over responsibility for this task. The responsibilities of the international civil presence were to include a wide range of tasks of a civilian administrative nature. Both these presences were to continue for an initial period of twelve months, and thereafter unless the Security Council decided otherwise. Both presences were duly established, the international security presence being known as KFOR and the international civil presence as UNMIK.
The applicants’ claims in Strasbourg were not the same. The Behramis complained of death and injury caused to two children by the explosion of an undetonated cluster bomb unit, previously dropped by NATO. They blamed KFOR for failing to clear these dangerous mines. Mr. Saramati complained of his extra-judicial detention by officers acting on the orders of KFOR between 13 July 2001 and 26 January 2002.
The Grand Chamber gave a lengthy judgment, rehearsing various articles of the UN Charter to which I refer below in the context of the second issue, and citing the ILC article and commentary referred to at para 5 above. Reference was made (para 36) to a Military Technical Agreement made between KFOR and the governments of Yugoslavia and Serbia providing for the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces and the deployment in Kosovo “under United Nations auspices of effective international civil and security presences". UNSCR 1244 (1999) was quoted at some length. The court noted (para 69) that the Yugoslav Government did not control Kosovo, which was under the effective control (para 70) of the international presences which exercised the public powers normally exercised by that government. The court considered (para 71) that the question raised by the cases was less whether the respondent states had exercised extra-territorial jurisdiction in Kosovo but, far more centrally, whether the court was competent to examine under the Convention those states’ contribution to the civil and security presences which did exercise the relevant control of Kosovo.
The court summarised (paras 73-120) the submissions of the applicants, the respondent states, seven third party states and the UN. In its own assessment it held that the supervision of de-mining at the relevant time fell within UNMIK’s mandate and that for issuing detention orders within the mandate of KFOR (paras 123-127). In considering whether the inaction of UNMIK and the action of KFOR could be attributed to the UN, the court held (para 129) that the UN had in Resolution 1244 (1999) “delegated” powers to establish international security and civil presences, using “delegate” (as it had explained in para 43) to refer to the empowering by the Security Council of another entity to exercise its function as opposed to “authorising” an entity to carry out functions which it could not itself perform. It considered that the detention of Mr. Saramati was in principle attributable to the UN (para 141). This was because (paras 133-134) the UN had retained ultimate authority and control and had delegated operational command only. This was borne out (para 134) by the facts that Chapter VII allowed the Security Council to delegate, the relevant power was a delegable power, the delegation was prior and explicit in Resolution 1244, the extent of the delegation was defined, and the leadership of the security and civil presences were required to report to the Security Council (as was the Secretary General). Thus (para 135) under Resolution 1244 the Security Council was to retain ultimate authority and control over the security mission and it delegated to NATO the power to establish KFOR. Since UNMIK was a subsidiary organ of the UN created under Chapter VII of the UN Charter its inaction was in principle attributable to the UN (paras 129, 142-143). Dealing finally with its competence ratione personae, the court said (para 149):
In the present case, chapter VII allowed the UNSC to adopt coercive measures in reaction to an identified conflict considered to threaten peace, namely UNSC Resolution 1244 establishing UNMIK and KFOR.
The UN did not dispatch the coalition forces to Iraq. The CPA was established by the coalition states, notably the US, not the UN. When the coalition states became occupying powers in Iraq they had no UN mandate. Thus when the case of Mr. Mousa reached the House as one of those considered in R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence) (The Redress Trust intervening) [2007] UKHL 26, [2007] 3 WLR 33 the Secretary of State accepted that the UK was liable under the European Convention for any ill-treatment Mr. Mousa suffered, while unsuccessfully denying liability under the Human Rights Act 1998. It has not, to my knowledge, been suggested that the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib was attributable to the UN rather than the US. Following UNSCR 1483 in May 2003 the role of the UN was a limited one focused on humanitarian relief and reconstruction, a role strengthened but not fundamentally altered by UNSCR 1511 in October 2003. By UNSCR 1511, and again by UNSCR 1546 in June 2004, the UN gave the multinational force express authority to take steps to promote security and stability in Iraq, but (adopting the distinction formulated by the European Court in para 43 of its judgment in Behrami and Saramati) the Security Council was not delegating its power by empowering the UK to exercise its function but was authorising the UK to carry out functions it could not perform itself. At no time did the US or the UK disclaim responsibility for the conduct of their forces or the UN accept it. It cannot realistically be said that US and UK forces were under the effective command and control of the UN, or that UK forces were under such command and control when they detained the appellant.
Article 5(1) protects one of the rights and freedoms which state parties to the European Convention have bound themselves to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction. It has been recognised as a right of paramount importance. It is one to which, by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998, UK courts must give effect. Its terms are familiar: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ....” There follows a list of situations in which a person may, in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, be deprived of his liberty. It is unnecessary to recite the details of these situations, since none of them is said to apply to the appellant. In the absence of some exonerating condition, the detention of the appellant would plainly infringe his right under article 5(1).
Chapter VII governs “Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression". It opens (article 39) by providing that the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression and decide what measures should be taken in accordance with articles 41 and 42 to maintain or restore international peace and security. Article 41 is directed to measures not involving the use of armed force. More pertinently, article 42 empowers the Security Council, if it considers that article 41 powers were or would be inadequate, to take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. By article 43, member states undertake, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, to make available to the Security Council on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance and facilities necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. Such agreements were to govern the number and types of forces, including their location, readiness and facilities and were to be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. No such agreements have, in practice, ever been made, and article 43 is a dead letter.
It remains to take note of article 103, a miscellaneous provision contained in Chapter XVI. It provides:
There is an obvious attraction in the appellant’s argument since, as appears from the summaries of UNSCRs 1511 and 1546 given above in paras 12 and 15, the resolutions use the language of authorisation, not obligation, and the same usage is found in UNSCRs 1637 (2005) and 1723 (2006). In ordinary speech to authorise is to permit or allow or license, not to require or oblige. I am, however, persuaded that the appellant’s argument is not sound, for three main reasons.
First, it appears to me that during the period when the UK was an occupying power (from the cessation of hostilities on 1 May 2003 to the transfer of power to the Iraqi Interim Government on 28 June 2004) it was obliged, in the area which it effectively occupied, to take necessary measures to protect the safety of the public and its own safety. Article 43 of the Hague Regulations 1907 provides, with reference to occupying powers:
Should the Power, in whose hands protected persons may be, consider the measures of control mentioned in the present Convention to be inadequate, it may not have recourse to any other measure of control more severe than that of assigned residence or internment, in accordance with the provisions of articles 42 and 43 ....
The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary ....
There are, secondly, some situations in which the Security Council can adopt resolutions couched in mandatory terms. One example is UNSCR 820 (1993), considered by the European Court (with reference to an EC regulation giving effect to it) in Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland (2005) 42 EHRR 1, which decided in paragraph 24 that “all states shall impound all vessels, freight vehicles, rolling stock and aircraft in their territories ...." Such provisions cause no difficulty in principle, since member states can comply with them within their own borders and are bound by article 25 of the UN Charter to comply. But language of this kind cannot be used in relation to military or security operations overseas, since the UN and the Security Council have no standing forces at their own disposal and have concluded no agreements under article 43 of the Charter which entitle them to call on member states to provide them. Thus in practice the Security Council can do little more than give its authorisation to member states which are willing to conduct such tasks, and this is what (as I understand) it has done for some years past. Even in UNSCR 1244 (1999) relating to Kosovo, when (as I have concluded) the operations were very clearly conducted under UN auspices, the language of authorisation was used. There is, however, a strong and to my mind persuasive body of academic opinion which would treat article 103 as applicable where conduct is authorised by the Security Council as where it is required: see, for example, Goodrich, Hambro and Simons (eds), Charter of the United Nations: Commentary and Documents, 3rd ed (1969), pp 615-616; Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1979), Vol II, Part One, para 14; Sarooshi, The United Nations and the Development of Collective Security (1999), pp 150-151. The most recent and perhaps clearest opinion on the subject is that of Frowein and Krisch in Simma (ed), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 2nd ed (2002), p 729:
Such authorizations, however, create difficulties with respect to article 103. According to the latter provision, the Charter – and thus also SC resolutions – override existing international law only insofar as they create ‘obligations’ (cf. Bernhardt on article 103 MN 27 et seq.). One could conclude that in case a state is not obliged but merely authorized to take action, it remains bound by its conventional obligations. Such a result, however, would not seem to correspond with state practice at least as regards authorizations of military action. These authorizations have not been opposed on the ground of conflicting treaty obligations, and if they could be opposed on this basis, the very idea of authorizations as a necessary substitute for direct action by the SC would be compromised. Thus, the interpretation of article 103 should be reconciled with that of article 42, and the prevalence over treaty obligations should be recognized for the authorization of military action as well (see Frowein/Krisch on article 42 MN 28). The same conclusion seems warranted with respect to authorizations of economic measures under article 41. Otherwise, the Charter would not reach its goal of allowing the SC to take the action it deems most appropriate to deal with threats to the peace – it would force the SC to act either by way of binding measures or by way of recommendations, but would not permit intermediate forms of action. This would deprive the SC of much of the flexibility it is supposed to enjoy. It seems therefore preferable to apply the rule of article 103 to all action under articles 41 and 42 and not only to mandatory measures.
I am further of the opinion, thirdly, that in a situation such as the present “obligations” in article 103 should not in any event be given a narrow, contract-based, meaning. The importance of maintaining peace and security in the world can scarcely be exaggerated, and that (as evident from the articles of the Charter quoted above) is the mission of the UN. Its involvement in Iraq was directed to that end, following repeated determinations that the situation in Iraq continued to constitute a threat to international peace and security. As is well known, a large majority of states chose not to contribute to the multinational force, but those which did (including the UK) became bound by articles 2 and 25 to carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter so as to achieve its lawful objectives. It is of course true that the UK did not become specifically bound to detain the appellant in particular. But it was, I think, bound to exercise its power of detention where this was necessary for imperative reasons of security. It could not be said to be giving effect to the decisions of the Security Council if, in such a situation, it neglected to take steps which were open to it.
Emphasis has often been laid on the special character of the European Convention as a human rights instrument. But the reference in article 103 to “any other international agreement” leaves no room for any excepted category, and such appears to be the consensus of learned opinion. The decisions of the International Court of Justice (Case Concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising From the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie [1992] ICJ Rep 3, para 39; Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide [1993] ICJ Rep 325, per Judge ad hoc Lauterpacht, pp 439-440, paras 99-100) give no warrant for drawing any distinction save where an obligation is jus cogens and according to Judge Bernhardt it now seems to be generally recognised in practice that binding Security Council decisions taken under Chapter VII supersede all other treaty commitments (Simma (ed), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 2nd ed (2002), pp 1299-1300).
The appellant is, however, entitled to submit, as he does, that while maintenance of international peace and security is a fundamental purpose of the UN, so too is the promotion of respect for human rights. On repeated occasions in recent years the UN and other international bodies have stressed the need for effective action against the scourge of terrorism but have, in the same breath, stressed the imperative need for such action to be consistent with international human rights standards such as those which the Convention exists to protect. He submits that it would be anomalous and offensive to principle that the authority of the UN should itself serve as a defence of human rights abuses. This line of thinking is reflected in the judgment of the European Court in Waite & Kennedy v Germany (1999) 30 EHRR 261, para 67, where the court said:
The court is of the opinion that where states establish international organisations in order to pursue or strengthen their co-operation in certain fields of activities, and where they attribute to these organisations certain competences and accord them immunities, there may be implications as to the protection of fundamental rights. It would be incompatible with the purpose and object of the Convention, however, if the contracting states were thereby absolved from their responsibility under the Convention in relation to the field of activity covered by such attribution. It should be recalled that the Convention is intended to guarantee not theoretical or illusory rights, but rights that are practical and effective ....
Thus there is a clash between on the one hand a power or duty to detain exercisable on the express authority of the Security Council and, on the other, a fundamental human right which the UK has undertaken to secure to those (like the appellant) within its jurisdiction. How are these to be reconciled? There is in my opinion only one way in which they can be reconciled: by ruling that the UK may lawfully, where it is necessary for imperative reasons of security, exercise the power to detain authorised by UNSCR 1546 and successive resolutions, but must ensure that the detainee’s rights under article 5 are not infringed to any greater extent than is inherent in such detention. I would resolve the second issue in this sense.
The appellant, Mr. Al-Jedda, has been detained since October 2004 by British forces serving as part of the multinational force (“MNF”) in Iraq. The basis of his detention is that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security in Iraq. Although the appellant does not accept that his internment is actually necessary, it is common ground that, for the purposes of this appeal, the House should proceed on the assumption that his internment is indeed necessary for the reasons given by the Secretary of State.
In section 21(1) of the HRA the term “Convention” in the Act is defined, however, as meaning the European Convention “as it has effect for the time being in relation to the United Kingdom". On that basis, in the courts below the Secretary of State argued that, to the extent that article 5(1) was trumped by the terms of Resolution 1546 and articles 25 and 103 of the Charter, it did not have “effect .... in relation to the United Kingdom” for purposes of the HRA.
While the effect of Quark Fishing was not explored by counsel in relation to the Secretary of State’s (new) first argument, the position must be the same as with his other argument. If the European Court would hold, as it held in relation to the defendant states in Behrami, that the action of the British forces in detaining Mr. Al-Jedda was attributable to the United Nations, then it would also declare his complaint to be incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention: Behrami, para 153. In other words, the Convention would not have “effect .... in relation to the United Kingdom” in respect of Mr. Al-Jedda’s detention. So, in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeal, he could not bring proceedings in the English courts under the HRA alleging that his detention was unlawful because it was incompatible with his article 5(1) Convention rights.
That decision arose out of events in Kosovo. One child, Gadaf Behrami, had been killed and another, Bekim Behrami, had been very seriously injured by an undetonated cluster bomb that had not been cleared. Mr. Saramati had been detained by French forces. The applicant, Mr. Agim Behrami, claimed that, in the case of his children, there had been a breach of article 2 of the Convention. Mr. Saramati claimed that there had been a violation of article 5 of the Convention. The case of the Behrami children was complicated by a factual dispute as to which organisation was responsible for the failure to clear the mines. For present purposes, however, it is enough to concentrate on Mr. Saramati’s application, alleging that his rights under article 5 of the Convention had been violated by France.
France argued that Mr. Saramati’s detention had been carried out by her forces when acting as part of the international Kosovo Force (“KFOR”), in accordance with its mandate in Security Council Resolution 1244. Hence the impugned detention was attributable to the United Nations. As the European Court explained in Behrami, at para 121, it therefore had, first, to determine whether the detention was indeed “attributable” to the United Nations, “attributable” being understood in the same way as in article 3 of the draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations. If the court found that the detention was indeed attributable to the United Nations, it had then to go on to consider whether the court was competent to review the detention. In the event, the court held, at para 140, that the United Nations retained ultimate authority and control and hence, at para 141, that the detention of Mr. Saramati was in principle “attributable” to the United Nations. The court went on to conclude that, in these circumstances, the Convention could not be interpreted in a manner which would subject the action of the French forces in detaining Mr. Saramati to the scrutiny of the court: para 149. So his application to the European Court was inadmissible.
In deciding that the detention of Mr. Saramati was attributable to the United Nations, the court paid particular attention to the legal basis on which the members of KFOR were operating. For present purposes the legal basis on which British forces in the MNF have been operating during the period of the appellant’s detention must similarly be important.
While Resolution 1511 provided the authority for establishing the MNF, the legal position of the British forces in Iraq changed significantly at the end of June 2004. From May 2003 until the end of June 2004, the British forces had been the forces of a power which was in occupation of the relevant area of Iraq. But on 28 June the occupation ended. The interim constitution of Iraq, the Transitional Administrative Law, came into effect and sovereignty was transferred to the Iraqi Interim Government. Since the United States and the United Kingdom were no longer occupying powers, a new legal basis for their actions had to be established. This is to be found in Resolution 1546 which was co-sponsored by the United States and the United Kingdom and which the Security Council adopted on 8 June 2004. That Resolution regulated the position of the MNF when Mr. Al-Jedda was detained in October 2004. By virtue of later resolutions, which do not need to be examined in detail, the core provisions of that Resolution have continued to regulate the position throughout the period of his detention.
It respectfully appears to me that the mere fact that Resolution 1244 was adopted before the forces making up KFOR entered Kosovo was legally irrelevant to the issue in Behrami. What mattered was that Resolution 1244 had been adopted before the French members of KFOR detained Mr. Saramati So the Resolution regulated the legal position at the time of his detention. Equally, in the present case, the fact that the British and other Coalition forces were in Iraq long before Resolution 1546 was adopted is legally irrelevant for present purposes. What matters is that Resolution 1546 was adopted before the British forces detained the appellant and so it regulated the legal position at that time. As renewed, the provisions of that Resolution have continued to do so ever since.
Another point requires to be cleared out of the way. As already mentioned, in R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] 3 WLR 33 the House held that proceedings could be brought under the HRA in United Kingdom courts in respect of violations of Convention rights by a United Kingdom public authority acting within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom in terms of article 1 of the Convention. For purposes of the first issue in this appeal, however, the House is not concerned with whether or not Mr. Al-Jedda, while detained by British forces, has been within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom in terms of article 1. The decision of the European Court in Behrami makes that quite clear. At para 71, the court said:
The court therefore considers that the question raised by the present cases is, less whether the respondent states exercised extra-territorial jurisdiction in Kosovo but far more centrally ['fondamentalement'], whether this court is competent to examine under the Convention those states’ contribution to the civil and security presences ['le rôle joué par ces Etats au sein des présences civile et de sécurité'] which did exercise the relevant control of Kosovo.
My Lords, it may seem tempting to begin and end any discussion of the position by focusing on the appellant’s detention and by asking – using the language in article 5 of the International Law Commission’s draft articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations (2004) – whether the United Nations organisation was in “effective control” of the British forces as they were detaining him. Obviously, the answer is that what the British forces did by way of detaining the appellant, they did as members of the MNF under unified command. No one would suggest that the Security Council either was, or could have been, involved in the particular decision to detain the appellant or in the practical steps taken to carry out that decision. But that was equally obviously the case with the detention of Mr. Saramati in the Behrami case. The Grand Chamber held, at para 140, that the Security Council “retained ultimate authority and control and that effective command of the relevant operational matters was retained by NATO“ (emphasis added). On this basis – and despite the fact that the “effective command” of the relevant operational matters was retained by NATO – the Grand Chamber held that the detention of Mr. Saramati was attributable to the United Nations.
The first step in the chain of reasoning which led the Grand Chamber to that conclusion was a consideration of what the Security Council was doing when it adopted the relevant provisions of Resolution 1244 under Chapter VII of the Charter. Similarly, in the present case, the correct starting point is with the Security Council’s adoption of Resolution 1546.
In terms of article 42 of the Charter, where lesser measures would be inadequate, the Security Council:
may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Authorizes member states and relevant international organisations to establish the international security presence in Kosovo as set out in point 4 of annex 2 with all necessary means to fulfil its responsibilities under paragraph 9 below.
As I have explained, the original authorisation for the setting up of the MNF in Iraq goes back to Resolution 1511, but Resolution 1546 was adopted in order to regulate the position when the occupation of Iraq came to an end. In Resolution 1546, having determined that the situation in Iraq continued to constitute a threat to international peace and security, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Security Council accordingly welcomed:
the willingness of the multinational force to continue efforts to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in support of the political transition, especially for upcoming elections, and to provide security for the United Nations presence in Iraq, as described in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the United States Secretary of State to the President of the Council, which is annexed to this resolution.
The heart of the Resolution is to be found in paras 10-12, where the Security Council:
Decides that the multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in accordance with the letters annexed to this resolution expressing, inter alia, the Iraqi request for the continued presence of the multinational force and setting out its tasks, including by preventing and deterring terrorism, so that, inter alia, the United Nations can fulfil its role in assisting the Iraqi people as outlined in paragraph seven above and the Iraqi people can implement freely and without intimidation the timetable and programme for the political process and benefit from reconstruction and rehabilitation activities;
Welcomes, in this regard, the letters annexed to this resolution stating, inter alia, that arrangements are being put in place to establish a security partnership between the sovereign Government of Iraq and the multinational force and to ensure coordination between the two ....
Decides further that the mandate for the multinational force shall be reviewed at the request of the Government of Iraq or twelve months from the date of this resolution, and that this mandate shall expire upon the completion of the political process set out in paragraph four above, and declares that it will terminate this mandate earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq ....
The letters mentioned in paragraph 10 of the Resolution include a letter from the American Secretary of State dated 5 June 2004. The Secretary of State began his letter in this way:
Mr. Powell went on to refer to the continuing problems with security in Iraq and to recognise that “Development of an effective and cooperative security partnership between the MNF and the sovereign Government of Iraq is critical to the stability of Iraq.” After describing the arrangements in more detail, he continued:
Mr. Powell then recorded that the MNF would establish or support a force to provide for the security of personnel and facilities of the United Nations in relation to its security effort. He went on to say that “the forces that make up the MNF are and will remain committed at all times to act consistently with their obligations under the law of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions."
Use of the term ‘delegation’ in the present decision refers to the empowering by the UNSC of another entity to exercise its function as opposed to ‘authorising’ an entity to carry out functions which it could not itself perform.
In a United Nations context, this distinction appears to go back to the decision of the International Court of Justice in Application for Review of Judgment No 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion [1973] ICJ Rep 166. The General Assembly, which did not itself have power under the Charter to review decisions of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, had set up a committee to carry out this function. The question for the International Court of Justice was whether the committee had the competence to ask the International Court for advisory opinions, arising out of the exercise of its power to review Tribunal decisions. The General Assembly itself had the competence to request advisory opinions. The International Court held that the committee did indeed have the competence to request advisory opinions for its own purposes, but not because the General Assembly had impliedly delegated its own competence to the committee. That could not be the basis, because the General Assembly could not have delegated to the committee the legal power, which it did not itself possess, to review Tribunal decisions. The court said, at p 174:
This is not a delegation by the General Assembly of its own power to request an advisory opinion; it is the creation of a subsidiary organ having a particular task and invested with the power to request advisory opinions in the performance of that task.
What therefore has to be considered is whether, in Resolution 1546, the Security Council was lawfully delegating its Chapter VII legal powers to take the necessary military measures to restore and maintain peace and security in Iraq to the MNF. As the Grand Chamber pointed out in Behrami, at para 132, under reference to, inter alia, Meroni v High Authority (Case 9/56) [1958] ECR 133:
[the] delegation must be sufficiently limited so as to remain compatible with the degree of centralisation of UNSC collective security constitutionally necessary under the Charter and, more specifically, for the acts of the delegate entity to be attributable to the UN.
In other words, the delegation would be unlawful if it amounted to the Security Council transferring the responsibility which is vested in it under the Charter to the delegate. More specifically, the delegation would be unlawful if the acts of the delegate entity were not attributable to the Security Council. As Blokker puts it, these principles “indicate a preference for control by the Council over operations by ‘coalitions of the able and willing’ so as not to abdicate the authority and responsibility bestowed on it by the Charter": N Blokker, “Is the Authorization Authorized? Powers and Practice of the UN Security Council to Authorize the Use of Force by ‘Coalitions of the Able and Willing’” (2000) 11 EJIL 541, 554. The article is cited by the Grand Chamber at para 132. In the words of de Wet, The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council, pp 265-266:
What is important, however, is that overall control of the operation remains with the Security Council. The centralisation of control over military action embodies the centralisation of the collective use of force, which forms the corner stone of the Charter. A complete delegation of command and control of a military operation to a member state or a group of states, without any accountability to the Security Council, would lack that degree of centralisation constitutionally necessary to designate a particular military action as a United Nations operation. It would undermine the unique decision-making process within an organ which was the very reason states conferred to it the very power which that organ would now seek to delegate. This concern is encapsulated in the maxim delegatus non potest delegare: a delegate cannot delegate.
Referring to the limits to any permissible delegation by the Security Council, the Grand Chamber added, at the end of para 132:
The Grand Chamber accordingly proceeded, at para 133, to identify the key question as being:
whether the UNSC retained ultimate authority and control so that operational command only was delegated. This delegation model is now an established substitute for the article 43 agreements never concluded.
Decides that the Council shall review the requirements and mission of the multinational force referred to in paragraph 13 above not later than one year from the date of this resolution, and that in any case the mandate of the force shall expire upon the completion of the political process as described in paragraphs 4 through 7 and 10 above, and expresses readiness to consider on that occasion any future need for the continuation of the multinational force, taking into account the views of an internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq.
that the United States, on behalf of the multinational force as outlined in paragraph 13 above, report to the Security Council on the efforts and progress of this force as appropriate and not less than every six months.
By contrast, in October 2003, in Iraq there were already forces in place, especially American and British forces, whom the Security Council could authorise to assume the necessary responsibilities. So it did not need to authorise the establishment of the MNF. In paragraph 13 the Council simply authorised “a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq” – thereby proceeding on the basis that there would indeed be a multinational force under unified command. In paragraph 14 the Council urged member states to contribute forces to the MNF. Absolutely crucially, however, in paragraph 13 it spelled out the mandate which it was giving to the MNF. By “authorising” the MNF to take the measures required to fulfil its “mandate", the Council was asserting and exercising control over the MNF and was prescribing the mission that it was to carry out. The authorisation and mandate were to apply to all members of the MNF – the British and American, of course, but also those from member states who responded to the Council’s call to contribute forces to the MNF. The intention must have been that all would be in the same legal position. This confirms that – as I have already held, at para 61 – the fact that the British forces were in Iraq before Resolution 1511 was adopted is irrelevant to their legal position under that Resolution and, indeed, under Resolution 1546.
I therefore conclude that, when the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII, authorised the MNF to carry out its various tasks in terms of Resolution 1546, it was purporting to delegate these functions to the MNF, just as it had delegated functions to KFOR in Resolution 1244. Certainly, I can see no reason in the circumstances of the present case why, in the light of the decision of the Grand Chamber in Behrami, the European Court would hold otherwise. I should add that any other conclusion would be surprising since the lawyers who draft Security Council resolutions on this “authorisation” model build on the practice of the Council. One would therefore expect to find that the, later, Resolution 1546 was based on the same principles as Resolution 1244. The Security Council will always be concerned, of course, to avoid the danger that a force, though nominally acting on behalf of the Council, is truly just made up of the forces of member states pursuing their own ends by military means in contravention of both article 2(4) of the Charter and the ius contra bellum of modern international law. Hence the insertion into the Resolutions, first, of a clear mandate for the force, of an indication of the date when the mandate will expire, of a mechanism for reports to be made to the Council and, finally, of an indication that the Council will remain seised of the matter. Again, the need for all these matters to be spelled out will be well known to the experts who draft the Resolutions.
The Grand Chamber first noted, at para 134, that Chapter VII allows the Security Council to delegate a power to “Member States and relevant international organisations". Secondly, the relevant power was one of those that could be delegated. Both of these points apply in the present case.
Thirdly, the Grand Chamber held that, in Resolution 1244 the delegation was neither presumed nor implicit, but rather prior and explicit. In fact, the delegation of the power to detain was not spelled out in that Resolution. By contrast, Mr. Powell’s letter, annexed to, and referred to in, Resolution 1546, listed internment as one of the tasks of the MNF. The Security Council therefore expressly authorised the MNF, in advance, to carry out internment, where this is necessary for imperative reasons of security.
Fifthly, the court noted that Resolution 1244 required the leadership of KFOR to report to the Security Council so as to allow the Council to exercise its overall authority and control. In fact, paragraph 20 of that Resolution requested the Secretary-General to report to the Council at regular intervals on the implementation of the resolution, “including reports from the leaderships of the international civil and security presences, the first reports to be submitted within 30 days of the adoption of this resolution.”
Having completed its examination of the terms of Resolution 1244, the Grand Chamber then went into the detail of the chain of command from the Security Council down through KFOR. In the present case, the relevant chain of command was explained by Linda Dann in her witness statement dated 17 August 2007. The legal authority for MNF-I (i.e. the multinational force in Iraq) came from the decisions taken by the Security Council in the exercise of its Chapter VII powers. At the relevant time, the MNF-I was commanded by a United States 4-star General, with a United Kingdom 3-star Lieutenant General as his deputy. Among the forces which were subordinate to MNF-I and reported to it was the Multi National Corps-Iraq (“MNC-I”), which was based in Baghdad and commanded by a United States 3-star Lieutenant General with a United Kingdom 2-star Major General as his deputy. MNC-I exercised a unified operational control over the Multi National Divisions, including the Multi National Division (South East) (“MND(SE)”), of which the United Kingdom forces who detained Mr. Al-Jedda formed part. The MND(SE) was commanded by a United Kingdom 2-star Major General, the GOC, who reported to MNC-I and was subject to the operational control of MNC-I and, ultimately, MNF-I. In September 2004 MND(SE) comprised forces from 11 countries besides the United Kingdom. The GOC commanding MND(SE) exercised operational control over the forces of all these national contingents. Again, I see no material difference between the chain of command in the present case and the chain of command for KFOR which the Grand Chamber was considering in Behrami.
The court then went on to reject submissions to the effect that, in the case of KFOR, the level of control by the individual States had been such as, in effect, to detach them from the international mandate and to undermine the unity of operational command. No such submissions are made about the British forces in the MNF in this case.
At para 140 of Behrami, the Grand Chamber found that, even if the United Nations might accept that there was room for improvement in the co-operation and command structures between the Security Council, the troop contributing nations and the contributing organisations, the Council “retained ultimate authority and control and .... effective command of the relevant operational matters was retained by NATO.” The court continued, at para 141:
In such circumstances, the court observes that KFOR was exercising lawfully delegated Chapter VII powers of the UNSC so that the impugned action was, in principle, ‘attributable’ to the UN within the meaning of the word outlined at paras 28 and 121 above.
This concluding paragraph is the culmination of the first part of the scheme set out in para 121 of the judgment. The court has been concerned to see that Resolution 1244 involved a delegation of the Security Council’s powers to KFOR. More importantly, it has checked to see that the terms of the delegation were sufficiently precise – due allowance being made for the inevitable limitations on what could be prescribed in advance – and that the mechanisms for the Security Council retaining ultimate control were also sufficient, for that delegation to be lawful. Having concluded that this was indeed the position, it followed that, when the French troops detained Mr. Saramati, they were exercising the powers which the Security Council had delegated to them. Since that delegation had not, unlawfully, deprived the Council of its responsibility for the exercise of those powers, the action of the French troops in detaining Mr. Saramati was in principle attributable to the United Nations in terms of article 3 of the draft articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations.
My Lords, if that was the conclusion reached by the Grand Chamber in the case of the detention of Mr. Saramati, I am bound to conclude that the court would reach the same conclusion in the case of Mr. Al-Jedda. Just as the members of KFOR were exercising powers of the Security Council lawfully delegated to them by the Council, so also the members of the MNF were exercising powers of the Security Council lawfully delegated to them by the Council under Resolution 1546. That being so, the court would hold,
first, that the Council retained ultimate authority and control and so remained responsible in law for the exercise of those powers and,
secondly, that the action of the British troops, as members of the MNF, in detaining Mr. Al-Jedda was in principle attributable to the United Nations in terms of article 3 of the draft articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations.
In Behrami, at para 144, the Grand Chamber proceeded to consider the effect of its conclusion that the detention of Mr. Saramati was in principle attributable to the United Nations. It noted that the United Nations is an organisation having a legal personality separate from that of its member states and that it is not a Contracting Party to the Convention. In particular, at para 146, the court began to consider whether it was competent ratione personae to review the acts of the respondent states carried out on behalf of the United Nations. It also went on to consider, more generally, the relationship between the Convention and the United Nations acting ["les actes de l'ONU"] under Chapter VII of the Charter.
the fact remains that the UNSC has primary responsibility, as well as extensive means under Chapter VII, to fulfil this objective, notably through the use of coercive measures. The responsibility of the UNSC in this respect is unique and has evolved as a counterpart to the prohibition, now customary international law, on the unilateral use of force ....
This leads to the court’s conclusion, at para 149, that:
the Convention cannot be interpreted in a manner which would subject the acts and omissions of Contracting Parties which are covered by UNSC Resolutions and occur prior to or in the course of such missions, to the scrutiny of the court. To do so would be to interfere with the fulfilment of the UN’s key mission in this field, including, as argued by certain parties, with the effective conduct of its operations. It would also be tantamount to imposing conditions on the implementation of a UNSC Resolution which were not provided for in the text of the Resolution itself.
UNMIK was a subsidiary organ of the UN created under Chapter VII and KFOR was exercising powers lawfully delegated under Chapter VII of the Charter by the UNSC. As such, their actions were directly attributable to the UN, an organisation of universal jurisdiction fulfilling its imperative collective security objective.
I am accordingly satisfied that, since the detention of the appellant by British forces taking part in the MNF was an action which was covered by Security Council Resolution 1546 and occurred in the course of the mission of the MNF, the European Court would hold that the Convention could not be interpreted in a manner that would subject that action to its scrutiny. A complaint by Mr. Al-Jedda, based on the same allegations of a violation of article 5(1) as in the present case, would accordingly be held to be incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. In consequence, the court would hold an application based on that complaint to be inadmissible.
Since article 5(1) of the Convention would therefore not have “effect .... in relation to the United Kingdom” in respect of Mr. Al-Jedda’s detention in international law before the European Court in Strasbourg, in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeal, which he does not challenge, I conclude that Mr. Al-Jedda cannot bring proceedings in the English courts under the HRA, alleging that his detention was unlawful because it was incompatible with his article 5(1) Convention right.
In my view, the result is accordingly that, like Mr. Saramati, following the decision of the Grand Chamber in Behrami, Mr. Al-Jedda must find his protection from arbitrary detention in the commitment, given by Mr. Powell to the Security Council, that members of the MNF would at all times act consistently with their obligations under the law of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions. It is for the Security Council, exerting its ultimate authority and exercising its ultimate right of control, to ensure that this commitment is fulfilled.
As Lord Bingham has shown, both state practice and the weight of academic authority support the view that articles 25 and 103 apply where the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII, adopts a resolution, such as Resolution 1546, which “authorises” rather than requires member states to take military action to meet a threat to international peace. Counsel for the appellant nevertheless submitted that the European Court might well not follow that approach and might, instead, insist on enforcing the obligations of the Contracting States under the Convention. In particular, the court might hold that, in a case such as the present, “the interest of international co-operation would be outweighed by the Convention’s role as a ‘constitutional instrument of European public order’” in the field of human rights: Behrami, at para 145, quoting the decision in Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland (2005) 42 EHRR 1, 45, para 156.
recalls that the principles underlying the Convention cannot be interpreted and applied in a vacuum. It must also take into account relevant rules of international law when examining questions concerning its jurisdiction and, consequently, determine state responsibility in conformity and harmony with the governing principles of international law of which it forms part, although it must remain mindful of the Convention’s special character as a human rights treaty ....
In fact, there is no need to speculate on the point, since in para 147 of its judgment, in setting out its reasons, the court recalled:
as noted at paragraph 122 above, that the Convention has to be interpreted in the light of any relevant rules and principles of international law applicable in relations between its Contracting Parties. The court has therefore had regard to two complementary provisions of the Charter, articles 25 and 103, as interpreted by the International Court of Justice ....
If he were to be returned to this country, he might face detention for up to 28 days under the Terrorism Act 2000 or be made subject to a control order under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Otherwise he could only be detained if charged with a criminal offence. There is no doubt that prolonged detention in the hands of the military is not permitted by the laws of the United Kingdom. Nor could it be permitted without derogation from our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 5(1) of the Convention provides that deprivation of liberty is only lawful in defined circumstances which do not include these. The drafters of the Convention had a choice between a general prohibition of “arbitrary” detention, as provided in article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and a list of permitted grounds for detention. They deliberately chose the latter. They were well aware of Churchill’s view that the internment even of enemy aliens in war time was “in the highest degree odious". They would not have contemplated the indefinite detention without trial of British citizens in peace time. I do not accept that this is less of a problem if people are suspected of very grave crimes. The graver the crime of which a person is suspected, the more difficult it will be for him to secure his release on the grounds that he is not a risk. The longer therefore he is likely to be incarcerated and the less substantial the evidence which will be relied upon to prove suspicion. These are the people most in need of the protection of the rule of law, rather than the small fry in whom the authorities will soon lose interest.
It is not clear to me how far UNSC resolution 1546 went when it authorised the MNF to “take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq, in accordance with the letters annexed to this resolution expressing, inter alia, the Iraqi request for the continued presence of the multinational force and setting out its tasks” (para 10). The “broad range of tasks” were listed by Secretary of State Powell as including “combat operations against members of these groups [seeking to influence Iraq’s political future through violence], internment where this is necessary for imperative reasons of security, and the continued search for and securing of weapons that threaten Iraq’s security". At the same time, the Secretary of State made clear the commitment of the forces which made up the MNF to “act consistently with their obligations under the law of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions".
On what basis is it said that the detention of this particular appellant is consistent with our obligations under the law of armed conflict? He is not a “protected person” under the fourth Geneva Convention because he is one of our own citizens. Nor is the UK any longer in belligerent occupation of any part of Iraq. So resort must be had to some sort of post conflict, post occupation, analogous power to intern anyone where this is thought “necessary for imperative reasons of security". Even if the UNSC resolution can be read in this way, it is not immediately obvious why the prolonged detention of this person in Iraq is necessary, given that any problem he presents in Iraq could be solved by repatriating him to this country and dealing with him here. If we stand back a little from the particular circumstances of this case, this is the response which is so often urged when British people are in trouble with the law in foreign countries, and in this case it is within the power of the British authorities to achieve it.
But that is not the way in which the argument has been conducted before us. Why else could Lord Bingham and Lord Brown speak of “displacing or qualifying” in one breath when clearly they mean very different things? We have been concerned at a more abstract level with attribution to or authorisation by the United Nations. We have devoted little attention to the precise scope of the authorisation. There must still be room for argument about what precisely is covered by the resolution and whether it applies on the facts of this case. Quite how that is to be done remains for decision in the other proceedings. With that caveat, therefore, but otherwise in agreement with Lord Bingham, Lord Carswell and Lord Brown, I would dismiss this appeal.
Internment without trial is so antithetical to the rule of law as understood in a democratic society that recourse to it requires to be carefully scrutinised by the courts of that society. There are, regrettably, circumstances in which the threat to the necessary stability of the state is so great that in order to maintain that stability the use of internment is unavoidable. The Secretary of State’s contention is that such circumstances exist now in Iraq and have existed there since the conclusion of hostilities in 2003. If the intelligence concerning the danger posed by such persons is correct, – as to which your Lordships are not in a position to make any judgment and do not do so – they pose a real danger to stability and progress in Iraq. If sufficient evidence cannot be produced in criminal proceedings – which again the House has not been asked to and cannot judge – such persons may have to be detained without trial. Article 42 of the 4th Geneva Convention permits the ordering of internment of protected persons “only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary", and under article 78 the Occupying Power must consider that step necessary “for imperative reasons of security.” Neither of these provisions applies directly to the appellant, who is not a protected person, but the degree of necessity which should exist before the Secretary of State detains persons in his position – if he has power to do so, as in my opinion he has – is substantially the same. I would only express the opinion that where a state can lawfully intern people, it is important that it adopt certain safeguards: the compilation of intelligence about such persons which is as accurate and reliable as possible, the regular review of the continuing need to detain each person and a system whereby that need and the underlying evidence can be checked and challenged by representatives on behalf of the detained persons, so far as is practicable and consistent with the needs of national security and the safety of other persons.
Resolution 1546 of the Security Council, the material terms of which are set out in para 15 of Lord Bingham’s opinion, provides that:
the multinational forces shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in accordance with the letters annexed to this resolution ....
to continue to undertake a broad range of tasks to contribute to the maintenance of security and to ensure force protection. These include activities necessary to counter ongoing security threats posed by forces seeking to influence Iraq’s political future through violence. This will include combat operations against members of these groups, internment where this is necessary for imperative reasons of security ....
It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the Resolution did not go further than authorising the measures described in it, as distinct from imposing an obligation to carry them out, with the consequence that article 103 of the Charter did not apply to relieve the United Kingdom from observing the terms of article 5(1) of the Convention. This was an attractive and persuasively presented argument, but I am satisfied that it cannot succeed. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 32 to 39 of Lord Bingham’s opinion I consider that Resolution 1546 did operate to impose an obligation upon the United Kingdom to carry out those measures. In particular, I am persuaded by State practice and the clear statements of authoritative academic opinion – recognised sources of international law – that expressions in Security Council Resolutions which appear on their face to confer no more than authority or power to carry out measures may take effect as imposing obligations, because of the fact that the United Nations have no standing forces at their own disposal and have concluded no agreements under article 43 of the Charter which would entitle them to call on member states to provide them.
I accordingly am of opinion that the United Kingdom may lawfully, where it is necessary for imperative reasons of security, exercise the power to intern conferred by Resolution 1546. I would emphasise, however, that that power has to be exercised in such a way as to minimise the infringements of the detainee’s rights under article 5(1) of the Convention, in particular by adopting and operating to the fullest practicable extent safeguards of the nature of those to which I referred in paragraph 130 above.
Detention without trial (internment) is anathema to most people. Its use in wartime Britain was later described by Winston Churchill as “in the highest degree odious”– see Brian Simpson’s Clarendon Press work under that title, 1994. But the internment condemned in wartime Britain was mostly of enemy aliens, many of them refugees from Nazi Germany, posing at most the scantiest of risks to the community. The appellant, by contrast, assuming he is responsible for even a fraction of what he is suspected of (see para 2 of my noble and learned friend Lord Bingham of Cornhill’s opinion), represents an acute danger to all those striving for peace in Iraq. Internment is nonetheless proscribed absolutely by the European Convention on Human Rights and there can be no question but that, if article 5(1) applies to the appellant’s internment in Iraq, he has been unlawfully detained ever since October 2004.
In these proceedings the appellant contends, first, that his detention from the outset has been in violation of article 5(1); secondly, that it is actionable at common law as the tort of wrongful imprisonment. The respondent meets the first contention by submitting, first, that the appellant’s detention is attributable not to the United Kingdom but rather to the United Nations and is, therefore, outside the scope of the Convention (a contention prompted by the European Court of Human Rights’ (“ECtHR”) recent admissibility decision in Behrami v France, Saramati v France, German and Norway (Application Nos 71412/01 and 78166/01 (unreported), 2 May 2007) (“Behrami“), and thus first advanced after the Court of Appeal decision now under appeal); secondly, as was held by both courts below, that article 5(1) is “qualified” or “displaced” by the legal regime established by a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions which expressly authorise internment where that is “necessary for imperative reasons of security in Iraq.” As for the appellant’s claim in tort, the respondent submits that it is the law of Iraq which governs the claim and there is no reason to suppose the detention to be unlawful under Iraqi law (as to which, in any event, no evidence has been adduced).
I have found this altogether the most difficult of the three issues now before your Lordships. The obvious starting point is the ECtHR’s recent decision in Behrami, in particular with regard to Mr. Saramati’s preventive detention (internment) by KFOR, a detention which the court (para 127) accepted “fell within the security mandate of KFOR” under UNSCR 1244. The court then reasoned essentially as follows:
The UN had delegated to KFOR (through NATO in consultation with non-NATO Member States) “operational command only", retaining for itself “ultimate authority and control” (paras 135 and 140).
Accordingly KFOR was exercising lawfully delegated Ch VII powers of the United Nations Security Council (“UNSC”) so that the impugned action (Mr. Saramati’s detention) was, in principle, directly attributable to the UN (paras 141 and 151).
Although it did not automatically follow that the court was incompetent ratione personae to review the acts of the respondent states carried out on behalf of the UN (the question posed at para 146), the court decided that in fact that was so (para 152) because, unlike the position in the Bosphorus case (Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland (2005) 42 EHRR 1), (a) KFOR’s impugned acts could not be attributed to the respondent states, and in any event (b) KFOR’s actions “were directly attributable to the UN, an organisation of universal jurisdiction fulfilling its imperative collective security objective.” (para 151).
The respondent submits that there are no distinctions of principle to be found between Mr. Saramati’s detention by KFOR under UNSCR 1244 and the appellant’s detention by the multinational force (“MNF”) under UNSCR 1546. And since, if that be right, the appellant could not succeed in an application under the Convention in Strasbourg, he cannot succeed either in a claim domestically under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Lord Bingham (para 24) concludes that the analogy with Kosovo breaks down at almost every point. I wish I found it so easy. My difficulty is not least with my Lord’s view that “there was no delegation of UN power in Iraq.” By that I understand him to mean (paras 21 and 23) that, in contrast to the position in Kosovo, the UN in Iraq was merely authorising the USA and the UK to carry out functions which it could not perform itself as opposed to empowering them to exercise its own function. It seems to me, however, that in this respect the situation in Kosovo and Iraq was the same: in neither country could the UN as a matter of fact carry out its central security role so that in both it was necessary to authorise states to perform the role. As the court in Behrami explained in paras 132 and 133, that necessarily follows from the absence of article 43 agreements. When the court posed “the key question whether the UNSC retained ultimate authority and control so that operational command only was delegated", it noted (para133): “This delegation model is now an established substitute for the article 43 agreements never concluded". And this seems to me entirely consistent with para 43 of the court’s judgment: the mention there of “functions which it could not itself perform” I understand to refer to functions which the Security Council cannot itself perform as a matter of law and which accordingly can only be done by a different body properly authorised under the UN Charter – see Sarooshi, “The United Nations and the Development of Collective Security: The Delegation by the UN Security Council of its Chapter VII powers” (1999).
I turn, therefore, to “the key question” and in particular to the five factors which led the court in Behrami (para134) to conclude that the UN in Kosovo had retained ultimate authority and control. The first, that Chapter VII of the Charter allows the UNSC to delegate to member states, applies equally here. So too the second, the power to provide for security being a legally delegable power. The third I shall leave over for the moment. It is difficult to find any relevant distinction with regard to the fourth: UNSCR 1511 (which authorised the formation of the MNF) fixed its mandate no less precisely than UNSCR 1244 defined KFOR’s mandate. Indeed, so far as the power of internment was concerned, resolution 1546 was altogether more specific (see paras 14 and 15 of Lord Bingham’s opinion), resolution 1244 having entrusted KFOR merely with such general responsibilities as “ensuring public safety and order". Nor could the fifth factor, the reporting requirements, reasonably lead to a different conclusion about ultimate authority and control here. True, this case lacks the additional safeguard noted in Behrami that KFOR’s report had to be presented by the UN Secretary General, but that surely is counterbalanced by the fact that the MNF’s mandate ceases unless renewed by the SC whereas KFOR’s mandate was to continue until the SC decided otherwise (a decision which, at least theoretically, a permanent member could have vetoed).
To my mind it follows that any material distinction between the two cases must be found in the third factor, or rather in the very circumstances in which the MNF came to be authorised and mandated in the first place. The delegation to KFOR of the UN’s function of maintaining security was, the court observed, “neither presumed nor implicit but rather prior and explicit in the resolution itself". Resolution 1244 decided (para 5) “on the deployment in Kosovo, under United Nations auspices, of international civil and security presences” – the civil presence being UNMIK, recognised by the court in Behrami (para 142) as “a subsidiary organ of the UN"; the security presence being KFOR. KFOR was, therefore, expressly formed under UN auspices. Para 7 of the resolution “[a]uthorise[d] member states and relevant international organisations to establish the international security presence in Kosovo as set out in point 4 of Annex 2 ...." Point 4 of Annex 2 stated: “The international security presence with substantial NATO participation must be deployed under unified command and control and authorised to establish a safe environment for all people in Kosovo and to facilitate the safe return to their homes of all displaced persons and refugees.”
“Determines that the provision of security and stability is essential to the successful completion of the political process as outlined in paragraph 7 above and to the ability of the United Nations to contribute effectively to that process and the implementation of resolution 1483 (2003), and authorises a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq, including for the purpose of ensuring necessary conditions for the implementation of the timetable and programme as well as to contribute to the security of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq ["UNAMI"], the Governing Council of Iraq and other institutions of the Iraqi interim administration, and key humanitarian and economic infrastructure.”
By resolution 1483, adopted on 22 May 2003, the SC had “[r]esolved that the United Nations should play a vital role in humanitarian relief, for reconstruction of Iraq, and the restoration and establishment of national and local institutions for representative governance” and, pursuant to it, the Secretary General [C T1] had established UNAMI, an essentially humanitarian and civil aid mission. As para 13 of resolution 1511 indicated, it was that mission which was the UN’s contribution to the situation in Iraq. The MNF under unified command which para13 was authorising was to contribute to the security of, amongst others, UNAMI. Unlike KFOR, however, it was not itself being deployed “under UN auspices". UNAMI alone represented the UN’s presence in Iraq.
Nor did the position change when resolution 1546 was adopted on 8 June 2004, three weeks before the end of the occupation and the transfer of authority from the CPA to the interim government of Iraq on 28 June 2004. UNAMI was to continue with its work (para 7). So too was the MNF, both of them acting at the request of the incoming interim government of Iraq. Resolution 1546 accordingly reaffirmed the authorisation of the MNF under unified command (this time “in accordance with the letters annexed", described by Lord Bingham at para14). And, as para10 noted, consistently with the previous position, the MNF’s tasks, including the prevention and deterrence of terrorism, were imposed so that, amongst other things, “the United Nations can fulfil its role in assisting the Iraqi people as outlined in para 7 above” – namely UNAMI’s humanitarian and civil aid work. Nothing either in the resolution itself or in the letters annexed suggested for a moment that the MNF had been under or was now being transferred to United Nations authority and control. True, the SC was acting throughout under Chapter VII of the Charter. But it does not follow that the UN is therefore to be regarded as having assumed ultimate authority or control over the force. The precise meaning of the term “ultimate authority and control” I have found somewhat elusive. But it cannot automatically vest or remain in the UN every time there is an authorisation of UN powers under Chapter VII, else much of the analysis in Behrami would be mere surplusage.
ISSUE TWO – DID THE UN RESOLUTIONS QUALIFY OR DISPLACE ARTICLE 5(1)?
The UN resolutions expressly authorised “internment where this is necessary for imperative reasons of security". For the purposes of these proceedings it has to be assumed that security considerations have indeed demanded the appellant’s internment. Even so, submits Mr. Starmer QC for the appellant, his internment nevertheless remains unlawful unless and until the UK exercises its article 15 right to derogate from article 5. I would reject this argument. In the first place it is highly doubtful whether article 15 could be invoked with regard to action taken outside the member state’s own territory – see, for example, the Grand Chamber’s judgment in Bankovic v Belgium (2001) 11 BHRC 435, para 62.
.... the court does not find any basis upon which to accept the applicants’ suggestion that article15 covers all ‘war’ and ‘public emergency’ situations generally, whether obtaining inside or outside the territory of the contracting state.
But the sounder and more fundamental reason for holding the article 5(1) proscription on internment to be qualified or displaced here is that article 25 of the Charter requires member states to accept and carry out security council decisions and article 103 provides that in the event of a conflict between that obligation and the member state’s obligations under any other international agreement, the former are to prevail. The SC’s decision here (see para 10 of UNSCR 1546) was “that the multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in accordance with the letters annexed ....” (which included amongst the MNF’s “tasks” “internment where this is necessary for imperative reasons of security”).
I find it quite impossible to regard that “task” as anything other than an article 25 (Charter) obligation which is to prevail over the article 5(ECHR) obligation not to intern. Mr. Starmer argues that the UK could decline to intern a prisoner just as it could decline to execute him. As, however, Lord Bingham points out (at para 34) if, as is here to be assumed, internment is indeed necessary for imperative reasons of security, a decision not to intern would be a refusal to carry out the UK’s allotted task. No such reasoning, of course, would apply in the case of capital punishment. In short, on this issue I agree with all that Lord Bingham has said.
ISSUE THREE – WHETHER ENGLISH COMMON LAW OR IRAQI LAW APPLIES TO THE APPELLANT'S DETENTION
I add a paragraph about Bici v Ministry of Defence [2004] EWHC 786 (QB) because Mr. Starmer has sought to place some reliance upon it. Bici was a claim in negligence and trespass to the person brought by two Kosovan Albanians against British soldiers arising out of a shooting incident during peacekeeping operations in Pristina. It had there been agreed (rather than decided) that English law should apply. In argument in R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence (The Redress Trust intervening) [2007] UK HL 26; [2007] 3 WLR 33, Mr. Greenwood QC referred the House to Bici to demonstrate that tort law applies to the acts of British forces abroad so that “claims may be brought for personal injury, damage to property or wrongful killing committed by British forces in Iraq, in the same way as claims brought in respect of acts committed in the UK.” Given that English law had been applied by agreement in Bici, Mr. Starmer suggests that Mr. Greenwood was implying that English law would apply similarly to all claims against British forces in Iraq. Mr. Greenwood disputes this, submitting that his argument in Al-Skeini said nothing as to what substantive law would apply to any tort action brought here. That seems to me correct. No one was focusing there on the applicable law and, indeed, in Al-Skeini it plainly mattered nothing whose substantive law applied: under neither English nor Iraqi law could it be lawful to ill-treat a detainee so violently that he died. Here, however, it does matter and in my judgment both courts below were plainly right in the conclusion they reached: Iraqi law applies.
Behrami v France, Saramati v France, Germany and Norway (Application Nos 71412/01 and 78166/01 (unreported), 2 May 2007)
R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence) (The Redress Trust intervening) [2007] UKHL 26, [2007] 3 WLR 33
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) [2005] ICJ Rep 116
Case Concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising From the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie [1992] ICJ Rep 3
Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide [1993] ICJ Rep 325
Loizidou v Turkey (1996) 23 EHRR 513
Bankovic v Belgium (2001) 11 BHRC 435
Fogarty v United Kingdom (2001) 34 EHRR 302
Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (2001) 34 EHRR 273
Waite & Kennedy v Germany (1999) 30 EHRR 261
R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence (The Redress Trust intervening) [2007] 3 WLR 33
In re McKerr [2004] 1 WLR 807
R (Quark Fishing Ltd) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2006] 1 AC 529
Application for Review of Judgment No 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion [1973] ICJ Rep 166
Meroni v High Authority (Case 9/56) [1958] ECR 133
Nicaragua v United States of America [1984] ICJ Rep 392
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v United States of America and Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v United Kingdom [1992] ICJ Rep 1
Human Rights Act 1998: s.6, s.21
United Nations Charter: Art.24, Art.25, Art.41, Art.42, Art.103
Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949): Art. 41, Art. 42, Art.78
Hague Regulations on the Laws and Customs of War on land (1907), Art.43
Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995: s.11, s.12
General Assembly Official Records 59th Session, Supp No 10 (A/59/10)
Goodrich, Hambro & Simons (eds), Charter of the United Nations: Commentary and Documents, 3rd ed (1969)
Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1979), Vol II, Part One
Frowein & Krisch in Simma (ed), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 2nd ed (2002)
International Law Commission, Responsibility of International Organisations (2004)
D Sarooshi, The United Nations and the Development of Collective Security: The Delegation by the UN Security Council of its Chapter VII Powers (1999)
E de Wet, The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council (2004)
N Blokker, “Is the Authorization Authorized? Powers and Practice of the UN Security Council to Authorize the Use of Force by ‘Coalitions of the Able and Willing’” (2000) 11 EJIL 541
de Wet, The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council
Brian Simpson, The European Convention on Human Rights: The First Half Century, University of Chicago Law School
Keir Starmer QC, Michael Fordham QC, Vaughan Lowe, Richard Hermer & Felicity Williams (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers) for the appellants.
Christopher Greenwood QC, Philip Sales QC & Jonathan Swift (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the respondents.
James Crawford SC & Shaheed Fatima (instructed by Herbert Smith) for the interveners.