IRAQ AND BRITISH LAW

The Coalition that invaded Iraq had many member countries. Yet after combat operations were declared over on 1 May 2003, only the U.S. and the U.K. chose to become "occupying powers", a position that was ratified later that month by the U.N. Security Council. Occupying powers have specific responsibilities under international law; maintaining security, for example. So from then until 28 June 2004, when the Coalition Provisional Authority ceased and its authority was handed over to the interim Iraqi Government, the British and Americans were in charge.

During that 14-month period, some nasty things happened in Basra, that part of the country under British control. In particular, a number of innocent civilians were killed by British soldiers. Relatives of the victims sought to bring claims in the U.K. courts that their and/or the victims' human rights had been violated. No proper investigations into the deaths had been undertaken; no admissions of liability had been made; and no proper compensation had been paid.

Six claims were chosen as tests. The various U.K. courts, including eventually the House of Lords in 2007, all decided that they had no case. The legal reasoning was that the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law, did not apply outside Europe. It was all very regrettable; but the unfortunate Iraqis had no redress for the wrongs committed during the time of British rule.

The European Court of Human Rights, the ultimate interpreter and arbiter of the Convention, disagrees. In a unanimous judgment issued by the Grand Chamber today, they said that in exceptional circumstances such as those obtaining in Iraq, the U.K. remained bound by convention rules safeguarding the right to life and liberty. The court ordered the U.K. to pay the claimants compensation and their costs.

The ruling has huge ramifications for the U.K. Waiting in line are a host of other Iraqis, who also have potential claims against the British military. Under the rules for ECtHR judgments, these claims will now have to be handled and adjudicated by the British courts.

Anti-European politicians will doubtless foam at the mouth about what they see as unwarranted intrusion in U.K. matters. However, disinterested neutrals (including me) will welcome the ruling as delayed justice. The decision to become an occupying power was a voluntary choice by a country seeking to "punch above its weight" in foreign policy and follow the lead of its American allies. The court has now decided that - at least in this area of life - power does indeed come with responsibility.

Walter Blotscher