Defence Secretary John Healey’s recent decision against a derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to cover any British troops deployed to Ukraine – a decision made on the basis that our troops would not be fighting but providing training – has a grim echo in history. It was an earlier Labour defence secretary, John Reid, who deployed troops to Helmand Province in Afghanistan and suggested that they might leave without firing a shot. With that example in mind it would perhaps be wise to reconsider.
I do not say this lightly. For the UK to derogate would be legally risky and potentially politically damaging. However, given the myriads of legal processes that have taken place, are ongoing or are now being prepared against British service personnel resulting from previous deployments including Northern Ireland, Afghanistan and others, it would be only sensible. The UK has shown itself to be vulnerable to what has become known as “lawfare” and the government has shown itself to be less than supportive or sympathetic to those it called upon to undertake these dangerous missions.
The UK has derogated before – notably during the Troubles in Northern Ireland and in limited forms during other military operations (Iraq and Afghanistan). More recently in 2016, the UK proposed derogations for future foreign deployments to protect soldiers from being sued under the ECHR – but this was eventually softened. In the context of Ukraine, if the UK were to operate directly in Ukraine (currently we train Ukrainian forces abroad) the government must consider the potential for provocation or mission creep of the sort that saw our involvement in Afghanistan escalate from peacekeeping to a shooting war.
Defence Secretary John Healey’s recent decision against a derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to cover any British troops deployed to Ukraine – a decision made on the basis that our troops would not be fighting but providing training – has a grim echo in history. It was an earlier Labour defence secretary, John Reid, who deployed troops to Helmand Province in Afghanistan and suggested that they might leave without firing a shot. With that example in mind it would perhaps be wise to reconsider.
I do not say this lightly. For the UK to derogate would be legally risky and potentially politically damaging. However, given the myriads of legal processes that have taken place, are ongoing or are now being prepared against British service personnel resulting from previous deployments including Northern Ireland, Afghanistan and others, it would be only sensible. The UK has shown itself to be vulnerable to what has become known as “lawfare” and the government has shown itself to be less than supportive or sympathetic to those it called upon to undertake these dangerous missions.
The UK has derogated before – notably during the Troubles in Northern Ireland and in limited forms during other military operations (Iraq and Afghanistan). More recently in 2016, the UK proposed derogations for future foreign deployments to protect soldiers from being sued under the ECHR – but this was eventually softened. In the context of Ukraine, if the UK were to operate directly in Ukraine (currently we train Ukrainian forces abroad) the government must consider the potential for provocation or mission creep of the sort that saw our involvement in Afghanistan escalate from peacekeeping to a shooting war.