After serving in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, I left the British Army. The first thing I did was warn of the creeping judicialisation of warfare I had seen. On patrols and in headquarters I saw how the increasing fear of future prosecution is undermining Britain’s military effectiveness and constraining courage, leaving us more in danger.
Today, our armed forces operate under a fog of legal uncertainty that makes them hesitate when decisive action is needed. That is already costing us all and strengthening our enemies.
How could you order soldiers into battle if the health and safety considerations are the same as those applying to an accountant? Only those prepared to act beyond the law will be able to win a future conflict.
The problem stems from the growing application of civilian law and European human rights frameworks to the battlefield – an environment they were never designed to regulate. Our soldiers in combat are increasingly being held to the same standards as police officers on a Saturday night in the West End, and being judged by people who have never known, and will never understand, the fear and confusion of battle.
Our ancestors understood the difference – they wrote the laws of armed conflict under the Geneva Conventions to apply in combat. They didn’t try to make civilian law fit the battlefield.
This legal mission creep has real consequences. By early 2015, over 1,200 public law claims had been filed against the Ministry of Defence relating to operations in Iraq alone, with about a further 1,000 private claims in train. The vast majority of these cases were eventually dismissed, but not before dragging servicemen and women through years of investigation and legal proceedings at enormous emotional and financial cost.
After serving in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, I left the British Army. The first thing I did was warn of the creeping judicialisation of warfare I had seen. On patrols and in headquarters I saw how the increasing fear of future prosecution is undermining Britain’s military effectiveness and constraining courage, leaving us more in danger.
Today, our armed forces operate under a fog of legal uncertainty that makes them hesitate when decisive action is needed. That is already costing us all and strengthening our enemies.
How could you order soldiers into battle if the health and safety considerations are the same as those applying to an accountant? Only those prepared to act beyond the law will be able to win a future conflict.
The problem stems from the growing application of civilian law and European human rights frameworks to the battlefield – an environment they were never designed to regulate. Our soldiers in combat are increasingly being held to the same standards as police officers on a Saturday night in the West End, and being judged by people who have never known, and will never understand, the fear and confusion of battle.
Our ancestors understood the difference – they wrote the laws of armed conflict under the Geneva Conventions to apply in combat. They didn’t try to make civilian law fit the battlefield.
This legal mission creep has real consequences. By early 2015, over 1,200 public law claims had been filed against the Ministry of Defence relating to operations in Iraq alone, with about a further 1,000 private claims in train. The vast majority of these cases were eventually dismissed, but not before dragging servicemen and women through years of investigation and legal proceedings at enormous emotional and financial cost.