The Laws
Prohibiting
War
The essential facts about the laws governing warfare and armed conflict
The essential facts about the laws governing warfare and armed conflict
Chris Coverdale
Contents
Why publish this material ? 4
Introduction 5
A short history of war law 6
The Laws prohibiting war 7
The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War [Kellogg-Briand Pact] 8
The Nuremburg Judgement 9
The United Nations Charter 11
The Nuremburg Principles 12
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 13
The International Criminal Court Act 2001 14
Laws governing the conduct of war 19
The Geneva Conventions 20
The Chemical, Biological and Toxin Weapons Conventions 20
The Landmines Convention 20
The Convention against Torture 20
The law prohibiting Conspiracy 20
The Offences against the Person Act 1861 21
The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 21
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 22
The Warfare Code – A summary of war law 26
Enforcing War Law 27
Holding leaders to account for their actions 28
Holding Government to account 28
Co-opting your MP 29
Impeachment 29
Reporting crimes to the Police 30
Reporting crimes to the International Criminal Court 30
Private Criminal Prosecution 30 Obtaining an Injunction 30
Applying for Judicial Review 31
Committing a crime to prevent a greater evil 32
Withholding tax 32 Refusing Orders 32
False Legal Advice on the legality of the war with Iraq 33
Correct Legal Advice – What the Attorney General should have said 34
Memorandum to the Prime Minister 34
The legal grounds against waging war 35
The Implications 41
Recommendations 41
Bibliography and Acknowledgements 42
Introduction 5
A short history of war law 6
The Laws prohibiting war 7
The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War [Kellogg-Briand Pact] 8
The Nuremburg Judgement 9
The United Nations Charter 11
The Nuremburg Principles 12
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 13
The International Criminal Court Act 2001 14
Laws governing the conduct of war 19
The Geneva Conventions 20
The Chemical, Biological and Toxin Weapons Conventions 20
The Landmines Convention 20
The Convention against Torture 20
The law prohibiting Conspiracy 20
The Offences against the Person Act 1861 21
The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 21
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 22
The Warfare Code – A summary of war law 26
Enforcing War Law 27
Holding leaders to account for their actions 28
Holding Government to account 28
Co-opting your MP 29
Impeachment 29
Reporting crimes to the Police 30
Reporting crimes to the International Criminal Court 30
Private Criminal Prosecution 30 Obtaining an Injunction 30
Applying for Judicial Review 31
Committing a crime to prevent a greater evil 32
Withholding tax 32 Refusing Orders 32
False Legal Advice on the legality of the war with Iraq 33
Correct Legal Advice – What the Attorney General should have said 34
Memorandum to the Prime Minister 34
The legal grounds against waging war 35
The Implications 41
Recommendations 41
Bibliography and Acknowledgements 42
“I deeply believe that no individual can
experience true happiness or tranquillity
until we turn humankind away from its
obsession with war. War has held us in its
irrevocable grip throughout history; it is the
source of all evil. War normalises
insanity, destroying human beings like so
many insects, tearing all that is human and
humane to shreds.”
Daisaku Ikeda - Buddhist
Why publish this material?
This booklet sets out to explain the laws of armed conflict to decision makers in Britain so that if they are ever again asked to support or condone warfare or military conflict, they can identify whether their involvement is lawful.
The need for this material arose in March 2003 when Britain’s Prime Minister took the nation into a war with Iraq on the false assertion that it would be legal. Because so few people in Britain know or understand the laws that prohibit war, we failed to recognise the dishonest nature of the legal advice provided by the Prime Minister and the Attorney General.
As a result of their deception over the legality of the war and the fictitious claim that Saddam Hussein was about to use weapons of mass destruction, Parliament voted in favour of war and Britain joined America in invading and occupying Iraq. The result of the decision to wage war is that at least 1,000,000 totally innocent Iraqi men, women and children have been killed and the State of Iraq virtually destroyed. These actions and the resulting deaths violated international treaties, breached the laws of war and constituted the most serious crimes known to mankind, genocide and a crime against humanity.
Every British citizen associated with the planning and conduct of the war with Iraq is criminally responsible in law for each and every death that took place.
It should not be possible in a democracy for a Government to deceive the people over such a fundamental issue as war. Having given firm undertakings to the world that Britain would never wage a war of aggression, never use armed force to threaten or attack another country, never kill or harm human beings, settle international disputes peacefully, respect human rights, uphold and enforce the rule of law and act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood and co-operation, the British and American governments ignored these binding promises and embarked on the world’s worst crime, a war of aggression.
Citizens expect their leaders to operate lawfully at all times, especially when making life and death decisions. The decision to take a nation to war is the most important a leader will ever have to take. He or she is personally responsible in law for the consequences of the decision and all the deaths and injuries that take place.
With the lives of thousands of men, women and children in their hands, politicians must be able to uphold the laws of war and explain to the families of those they have killed why they had to die and what cause is so important that it overrides the right to life. It is therefore essential that our political, civil and military leaders have a faultless understanding of war law before they take decisions that lead to the violent deaths of totally innocent men, women and children.
I hope that you find this material useful and that having read it you will do all you can to compel Britain’s political, civil and military leaders to uphold international treaties and enforce the laws of war. We all have a duty to future generations to uphold, maintain and reinforce the values of justice, equality and the rule of law espoused by the United Nations.
Introduction
There is no better introduction to the law of war than these extracts from the judgement of The Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal in 1946 when Germany’s leaders were tried and convicted as war criminals for waging wars of aggression.
“In the opinion of the Tribunal, those who wage aggressive war are doing that which is equally illegal, and of much greater moment than a breach of one of the rules of the Hague Convention. In interpreting the words of the [Kellogg-Briand] Pact, it must be remembered that international law is not the product of an international legislature, and that such international agreements as the Pact have to deal with general principles of law, and not with administrative matters of procedure. The law of war is to be found not only in treaties, but in the customs and practices of states which gradually obtained universal recognition, and from the general principles of justice applied by jurists and practiced by military courts.
Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.
War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime,"
"it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946
There is no better introduction to the law of war than these extracts from the judgement of The Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal in 1946 when Germany’s leaders were tried and convicted as war criminals for waging wars of aggression.
“In the opinion of the Tribunal, those who wage aggressive war are doing that which is equally illegal, and of much greater moment than a breach of one of the rules of the Hague Convention. In interpreting the words of the [Kellogg-Briand] Pact, it must be remembered that international law is not the product of an international legislature, and that such international agreements as the Pact have to deal with general principles of law, and not with administrative matters of procedure. The law of war is to be found not only in treaties, but in the customs and practices of states which gradually obtained universal recognition, and from the general principles of justice applied by jurists and practiced by military courts.
Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.
War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime,"
"it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946
A short history of war law
“War between nations was renounced by the signatories of the Kellogg-Briand Treaty. This means that it has become throughout practically the entire world an illegal thing. Hereafter, when nations engage in armed conflict, either one or both of them must be termed violators of this general treaty law.... We denounce them as law breakers."
Henry Stimson, USA Secretary of State 1932
The horrors of the First World War were such that statesmen were determined to end warfare once and for all. The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War was signed in 1928 and eventually ratified by 62 States including France, America, Britain, Germany, Japan and Italy. It became known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact after its main proponents the American Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and France’s foreign minister Aristide Briand. This was the first treaty prohibiting the waging of war and it formed the legal basis for the convictions of Germany’s leaders at Nuremburg after World War II.
In 1945 The United Nations was founded to eliminate warfare, promote human rights, uphold justice and international treaties and advance the economic and social interests of humankind. One of its first actions was to set up an International Law Commission to draw up statute war laws based on the judgments of the Nuremburg and T okyo War Crimes Tribunals.
In 1950 the General Assembly accepted the Commission’s proposals and enacted seven new war laws to be known as the Nuremburg Principles. In 1948 the Genocide Convention was enacted, to prevent a repeat of the Holocaust and ensure that no-one would ever again attempt to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. But for the persistence of Senator William Proxmire the USA might never have ratified this law, but eventually in 1988 under President Reagan the Genocide Convention Implementation Act [The Proxmire Act] became law in America.
The fifty year period after the signing of the Genocide Convention saw the signing of several important war laws with additions to the Geneva Conventions, a treaty outlawing torture, conventions governing the manufacture, trading and use of chemical, biological and toxin weapons; and in 1998 the world outlawed the use of landmines. In 2002 with the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the world’s first international law enforcement authority was set up in The Hague with jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Although the world community has made strenuous efforts to outlaw war, it encounters great difficulty in enforcing the law. National leaders tend to ignore and violate war law as and when it suits their interests. Only when a leader of a major nation is convicted of war crimes in court will the world be in a position to eradicate warfare and armed conflict once and for all.
The Laws Prohibiting War
“the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such a war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war, with its inevitable and terrible consequences, are committing a crime in so doing.”
INTERNATIONAL LAW
The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War [Kellogg-Briand Pact] The United Nations Charter
The Nuremburg Judgement
The Nuremburg Principles
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
DOMESTIC UK LAW
The International Criminal Court Act 2001
Just or unjust war
The legal terms jus ad bellum and jus in bello which distinguish between laws governing the resort to war and laws governing the conduct of war are not used in this volume to avoid any inference of a just war. Since 1928, when warfare was made illegal, there has been no such thing as a justifiable war. All armed conflict is illegal. The sole exception occurs when a nation is under armed attack and needs to defend itself.
“the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such a war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war, with its inevitable and terrible consequences, are committing a crime in so doing.”
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal
INTERNATIONAL LAW
The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War [Kellogg-Briand Pact] The United Nations Charter
The Nuremburg Judgement
The Nuremburg Principles
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
DOMESTIC UK LAW
The International Criminal Court Act 2001
Just or unjust war
The legal terms jus ad bellum and jus in bello which distinguish between laws governing the resort to war and laws governing the conduct of war are not used in this volume to avoid any inference of a just war. Since 1928, when warfare was made illegal, there has been no such thing as a justifiable war. All armed conflict is illegal. The sole exception occurs when a nation is under armed attack and needs to defend itself.
The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War 1928
(The Kellogg-Briand Pact)
This solemn and binding treaty unconditionally condemned and renounced recourse to war as an instrument of national policy, and promised that henceforth all international disputes would be settled peacefully. This treaty is still in force and together with the London Charter provided the legal basis for the trial of Germany’s leaders at Nuremburg after the Second World War.
ARTICLE I The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.
ARTICLE II The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.
Comment
The main purpose of this treaty was to outlaw warfare as a method of conducting international affairs. The horrifying effects of the First World War in which millions were killed and maimed had convinced public opinion that such a war must never happen again. It was no longer acceptable for civilised nations to use armed force to achieve their objectives. Although the terms of this treaty were crystal clear, it included no enforcement method or punishment for those who violated it. Later this loophole in law enforcement enabled the leaders of Germany, Italy and Japan to initiate what was to become the Second World War in which nearly twenty million people were killed.
Fortunately for the rule of law, President Roosevelt refused to bow to the demands of Churchill and Stalin for the summary executions of the Axis nations’ leaders, and insisted on holding them to account for their crimes in court. As a result Germany’s leaders were convicted of waging wars of aggression in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials in 1946.
The Judgement of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal.
As the world’s first major war crimes trial, the Nuremburg Tribunal confirmed the principles and tenets that now form the bases of customary international war law. Germany’s leaders were convicted in 1946 of crimes against peace and humanity for waging wars of aggression against eleven nation states in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. The judgement highlighted the principles governing conflict between nations, and the responsibilities of individuals in preventing war.
“After the signing of the Pact, any nation resorting to war as an instrument of national policy breaks the Pact. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war with its inevitable and terrible consequences are committing a crime in so doing...
It was submitted [by the defendants] that international law is concerned with the action of sovereign states, and provides no punishment for individuals; and further, that where the act in question is an act of state, those who carry it out are not personally responsible, but are protected by the doctrine of the sovereignty of the State. In the opinion of the Tribunal, both these submissions must be rejected. That international law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals as well as upon States has long been recognised...
The very essence of the [London] Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law...
That a soldier was ordered to kill or torture in violation of the international law of war has never been recognised as a defence to such acts of brutality, though, as the Charter here provides, the order may be urged in mitigation of the punishment. The true test, which is found in varying degrees in the criminal law of most nations, is not the existence of the order, but whether moral choice was in fact possible...
Comment
The Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal was the first occasion in modern history when political leaders were held to account for their crimes in a court of law. The essence of the trials was that individual leaders and officials could not shelter behind their duty to the state, when the state was in breach of international law. As Germany had ratified the Kellogg-Briand Pact, its leaders, by breaching the Pact, had committed serious crimes for which they were personally responsible and for which they were convicted and punished.
As the world’s first major war crimes trial, the Nuremburg Tribunal confirmed the principles and tenets that now form the bases of customary international war law. Germany’s leaders were convicted in 1946 of crimes against peace and humanity for waging wars of aggression against eleven nation states in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. The judgement highlighted the principles governing conflict between nations, and the responsibilities of individuals in preventing war.
“After the signing of the Pact, any nation resorting to war as an instrument of national policy breaks the Pact. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war with its inevitable and terrible consequences are committing a crime in so doing...
It was submitted [by the defendants] that international law is concerned with the action of sovereign states, and provides no punishment for individuals; and further, that where the act in question is an act of state, those who carry it out are not personally responsible, but are protected by the doctrine of the sovereignty of the State. In the opinion of the Tribunal, both these submissions must be rejected. That international law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals as well as upon States has long been recognised...
The very essence of the [London] Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law...
That a soldier was ordered to kill or torture in violation of the international law of war has never been recognised as a defence to such acts of brutality, though, as the Charter here provides, the order may be urged in mitigation of the punishment. The true test, which is found in varying degrees in the criminal law of most nations, is not the existence of the order, but whether moral choice was in fact possible...
Comment
The Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal was the first occasion in modern history when political leaders were held to account for their crimes in a court of law. The essence of the trials was that individual leaders and officials could not shelter behind their duty to the state, when the state was in breach of international law. As Germany had ratified the Kellogg-Briand Pact, its leaders, by breaching the Pact, had committed serious crimes for which they were personally responsible and for which they were convicted and punished.
The Nuremburg trials are important in that they provide the first example of the rule
of international war law in action and the judgment gave a lucid account of the laws
against war and the principles which underpin relations between states. The
International Law Commission used the Nuremburg judgment as the basis for the
statutory laws against war agreed in 1950 by the UN General Assembly which were
entitled the Nuremburg Principles in recognition of their source.
The single most important development derived from the Nuremburg judgment is the focus on the responsibility of the individual in matters of international warfare. Individuals who start, support, condone or take part in a war are criminally liable for the resulting deaths and injuries and are to be held to account for their crimes in court. Historically national leaders such as Kaiser Wilhelm or Napoleon Bonaparte who were responsible for waging wars causing the deaths of millions had escaped the ultimate penalty for their crimes.
The Nuremburg judgement made it clear that not only could Heads of State be indicted, tried and convicted as war criminals, but so too could all those individuals who were responsible for planning, supporting, condoning, funding or taking part in a war of aggression.
The main legal principle derived from Nuremburg is that every citizen has a duty to humankind to exercise a moral choice and to take action to prevent their leaders and governments from violating the laws of war and waging a war of aggression.
The single most important development derived from the Nuremburg judgment is the focus on the responsibility of the individual in matters of international warfare. Individuals who start, support, condone or take part in a war are criminally liable for the resulting deaths and injuries and are to be held to account for their crimes in court. Historically national leaders such as Kaiser Wilhelm or Napoleon Bonaparte who were responsible for waging wars causing the deaths of millions had escaped the ultimate penalty for their crimes.
The Nuremburg judgement made it clear that not only could Heads of State be indicted, tried and convicted as war criminals, but so too could all those individuals who were responsible for planning, supporting, condoning, funding or taking part in a war of aggression.
The main legal principle derived from Nuremburg is that every citizen has a duty to humankind to exercise a moral choice and to take action to prevent their leaders and governments from violating the laws of war and waging a war of aggression.
The United Nations Charter.
The United Nations Charter sets out to prevent war and promote peace, justice and the rule of law throughout the world. Its articles clearly prohibit the use of armed force:
2.3 All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.
2.4 All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
41 The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force1 are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
42 Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 prove to be inadequate, it 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.
Comment
The main legal principles in the UN Charter relating to warfare are that (1) International disputes must be settled by peaceful means, (2) Member States must never threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, (3) The Security Council must keep the peace and may not use armed force, (4) The only legal use of armed force is individual or collective self defence.
As the United Nations does not possess a law enforcement body it cannot enforce its rules on its members, especially the permanent members of the Security Council. Member States are therefore responsible for policing their own actions and holding their own representatives to account for breaches of the rules. The British and American Governments are amongst the worst in breaching the UN Charter and interpreting the rules to suit themselves.
The latest example of British Government duplicity was the false claim that the 2003 Iraq war was authorised by UN Security Council resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. The Security Council can never authorise the use of armed force and must always adopt a peacekeeping approach. By invading and occupying Iraq and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, America, Britain and their Coalition allies violated the rule that disputes must be settled peacefully and breached the prohibition on the threat or use of force.
1
The United Nations Charter sets out to prevent war and promote peace, justice and the rule of law throughout the world. Its articles clearly prohibit the use of armed force:
2.3 All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.
2.4 All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
41 The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force1 are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
42 Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 prove to be inadequate, it 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.
Comment
The main legal principles in the UN Charter relating to warfare are that (1) International disputes must be settled by peaceful means, (2) Member States must never threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, (3) The Security Council must keep the peace and may not use armed force, (4) The only legal use of armed force is individual or collective self defence.
As the United Nations does not possess a law enforcement body it cannot enforce its rules on its members, especially the permanent members of the Security Council. Member States are therefore responsible for policing their own actions and holding their own representatives to account for breaches of the rules. The British and American Governments are amongst the worst in breaching the UN Charter and interpreting the rules to suit themselves.
The latest example of British Government duplicity was the false claim that the 2003 Iraq war was authorised by UN Security Council resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. The Security Council can never authorise the use of armed force and must always adopt a peacekeeping approach. By invading and occupying Iraq and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, America, Britain and their Coalition allies violated the rule that disputes must be settled peacefully and breached the prohibition on the threat or use of force.
1
The Nuremberg Principles
These are the seven fundamental principles of international war law derived from the Nuremburg and Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals by the International Law Commission which were adopted as statute war law by the United Nations General Assembly in 1950.
I. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
II. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
V. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a
war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of
any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are
not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
VII. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
These are the seven fundamental principles of international war law derived from the Nuremburg and Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals by the International Law Commission which were adopted as statute war law by the United Nations General Assembly in 1950.
I. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
II. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
V. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a
war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of
any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are
not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
VII. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
In July 1998 Britain became a founding signatory to the inter-governmental treaty known as the Rome Statute. This treaty set up the world’s first permanent international criminal court in The Hague, and ceded ultimate jurisdiction over the universal crimes of ‘genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes’ to the Court.
This new system of international criminal law came into force in July 2002 when Australia became the sixtieth state to ratify the treaty, and for the first time in 1600 years every British citizen or resident became subject to international criminal law and an external law enforcement authority.
25.(3) In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime [genocide, a crime against humanity and a war crime] within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:
(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;
(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;
(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;
In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose...
27.(1) This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.
Comment
This treaty is the culmination of fifty years of efforts by the world community to introduce an international system of war law enforcement. As wars are started by political leaders and never by a nation’s citizens, it was held to be essential that the world possessed law enforcement processes strong enough to hold the most powerful leaders to account for their war crimes in court. Although to date the USA has refused to ratify this treaty, 105 nations have done so, making it the most important treaty against warfare and the mistreatment of human beings yet devised. As this is the first attempt to set up a system designed to hold world leaders to account for their war crimes, it behoves us all to do everything in our power to support its operation and compel political, civil and military leaders to pursue the interests of humanity rather than the illusory and limited benefits of wealth, power and world domination.
In July 1998 Britain became a founding signatory to the inter-governmental treaty known as the Rome Statute. This treaty set up the world’s first permanent international criminal court in The Hague, and ceded ultimate jurisdiction over the universal crimes of ‘genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes’ to the Court.
This new system of international criminal law came into force in July 2002 when Australia became the sixtieth state to ratify the treaty, and for the first time in 1600 years every British citizen or resident became subject to international criminal law and an external law enforcement authority.
25.(3) In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime [genocide, a crime against humanity and a war crime] within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:
(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;
(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;
(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;
In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose...
27.(1) This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.
Comment
This treaty is the culmination of fifty years of efforts by the world community to introduce an international system of war law enforcement. As wars are started by political leaders and never by a nation’s citizens, it was held to be essential that the world possessed law enforcement processes strong enough to hold the most powerful leaders to account for their war crimes in court. Although to date the USA has refused to ratify this treaty, 105 nations have done so, making it the most important treaty against warfare and the mistreatment of human beings yet devised. As this is the first attempt to set up a system designed to hold world leaders to account for their war crimes, it behoves us all to do everything in our power to support its operation and compel political, civil and military leaders to pursue the interests of humanity rather than the illusory and limited benefits of wealth, power and world domination.
The International Criminal Court Act 2001.
Britain’s Parliament ratified the Rome Statute by enacting The International Criminal Court Act 2001. This new law incorporated the crimes of ‘genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes’ into UK criminal law whilst ceding ultimate authority over these crimes to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The Act holds that:
It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit
genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime, or to engage in conduct ancillary
to such an act. This applies to acts committed in England or Wales or outside the
United Kingdom by a UK national, resident or person subject to UK service
jurisdiction .
For the purposes of this Statute “Genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
For the purposes of this Statute “Crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population with knowledge of the attack: murder; extermination; enslavement; deportation or forcible transfer of population; imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; torture; rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; enforced disappearance of persons; the crime of apartheid; other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
(a) “Attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack; (b) “Extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population; (c) “Enslavement” means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in
Britain’s Parliament ratified the Rome Statute by enacting The International Criminal Court Act 2001. This new law incorporated the crimes of ‘genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes’ into UK criminal law whilst ceding ultimate authority over these crimes to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The Act holds that:
It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit
genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime, or to engage in conduct ancillary
to such an act. This applies to acts committed in England or Wales or outside the
United Kingdom by a UK national, resident or person subject to UK service
jurisdiction .
For the purposes of this Statute “Genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
For the purposes of this Statute “Crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population with knowledge of the attack: murder; extermination; enslavement; deportation or forcible transfer of population; imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; torture; rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; enforced disappearance of persons; the crime of apartheid; other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
(a) “Attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack; (b) “Extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population; (c) “Enslavement” means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in
International Criminal Court Act 2001.
This is a summary. For the complete definition of the offences refer to Sections 50 – 78
The particular women and children; (d) “Deportation or forcible transfer of population” means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; (e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions; (f) “Forced pregnancy” means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law; (g) “Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity; (h) “The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime; (i) “Enforced disappearance of persons” means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
3. For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term “gender” refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term “gender” does not indicate any meaning different from the above.
For the purposes of this Statute “war crimes” means:
(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention: (i) Wilful killing; (ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; (iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; (iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; (v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power; (vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial; (vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement; (viii) Taking of hostages.
(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts: (i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities; (ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives; (iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; (iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military
advantage anticipated; (v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns,
villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military
objectives; (vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or
having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion; (vii) Making
improper use of a flag of truce, or of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of
the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the
Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury; (viii) The transfer,
directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population
into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the
population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory; (ix) Intentionally
directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or
charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and
wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives; (x) Subjecting
persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical
or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental
or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest,
and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or
persons; (xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile
nation or army; (xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given; (xiii) Destroying or seizing
the enemy’s property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded
by the necessities of war; (xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a
court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party; (xv)
Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war
directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service
before the commencement of the war; (xvi) Pillaging a town or place, even when
taken by assault; (xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons; (xviii) Employing
asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or
devices; (xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body,
such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is
pierced with incisions; ....... (xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in
particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (xxii) Committing rape, sexual
slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy as defined in article 7, paragraph
2(f), enforced sterilisation, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a
grave breach of the Geneva Conventions; (xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or
other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from
military operations; (xxiv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material,
medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the
Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law; (xxv) Intentionally using
starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects
indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided
for under the Geneva Conventions; (xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the
age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate
actively in hostilities.
(c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause: (i) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (ii) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in
(c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause: (i) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (ii) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in
particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (iii) Taking of hostages; (iv) The
passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement
pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which
are generally recognised as indispensable.
(d) Paragraph 2(c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.
(e) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts: (i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities; (ii) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law; (iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; (iv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives; (v) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault; (vi) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2(f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions; (vii) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities; (viii) Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand; (ix) Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary; (x) Declaring that no quarter will be given; (xi) Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons; (xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict.
(f) Paragraph 2(e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.
“Conduct ancillary” means: aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence, inciting a person to commit an offence, attempting or conspiring to commit an offence, assisting an offender or concealing the offence.
(d) Paragraph 2(c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.
(e) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts: (i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities; (ii) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law; (iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; (iv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives; (v) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault; (vi) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2(f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions; (vii) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities; (viii) Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand; (ix) Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary; (x) Declaring that no quarter will be given; (xi) Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons; (xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict.
(f) Paragraph 2(e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.
“Conduct ancillary” means: aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence, inciting a person to commit an offence, attempting or conspiring to commit an offence, assisting an offender or concealing the offence.
A person is regarded as committing such an act or crime if the material elements
are committed with intent and knowledge. A person has ‘intent’ where he means
to engage in the conduct or where he means to cause the consequence or where
he is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events. ‘Knowledge’ means
awareness that circumstances exist or will occur in the ordinary course of events.
Implications
For the first time in English law we have an Act of Parliament that takes precedence over the Royal Prerogative and binds the Crown and everyone in the public service of the Crown. By enacting this war law, Parliament blocked the legal loopholes that have enabled past British leaders to commit war crimes with impunity. Criminal responsibility for the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes now lies with those who commit them, those who commission them and those who condone or support them, and all such persons can be held to account for these crimes in court.
Article 25 of the Rome Statute and sections 51 and 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 not only place criminal responsibility for the deaths caused by war on the Monarch, the Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet, senior civil servants, MPs and the military commanders responsible for commissioning acts of war; but equally place criminal responsibility on the servicemen and women, arms manufacturers, suppliers and taxpayers who aid, abet, incite or facilitate the commission of these crimes. No longer can individuals evade joint responsibility for crimes committed by our political leaders.
All military personnel, taxpayers and ordinary citizens who support, obey or condone the orders of their government or Parliament to wage aggressive war in which people are killed, are not only criminally liable for a crime against peace under the Nuremburg Principles, but under this new legislation they become accessories to the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and render themselves liable to prosecution in Britain or The Hague.
It is a common error in Britain to believe that the law is different or somehow suspended in times of war. This is not the case. That the nation is at war provides no legal protection, excuse or defence to these crimes. This means that since 2002, if one or more persons is injured or killed through the deliberate action of Britain’s military forces against a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, then a crime of genocide has been committed and those responsible for it are criminally liable and may be indicted and tried for the offence. So for example if an RAF officer under orders fires a rocket or drops a bomb that causes death or injury to men, women and children in Iraq, then he or she together with the political, civil and military commanders who commissioned the bombing can be charged with a war crime. If any member of HM armed forces intentionally kills or injures one or more persons who are members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as part of a widespread or systematic attack on that group, then both the individual killer and all those in the chain of command responsible for giving the orders to attack, are criminally responsible for the crimes of ‘genocide’ or ‘conduct ancillary to genocide’.
The principle of international law, which under certain circumstances protects the representatives of a state, cannot be applied to acts which are condemned as criminal by international law. The authors of these facts cannot shelter themselves behind their official position in order to be freed from punishment in appropriate proceedings.
Implications
For the first time in English law we have an Act of Parliament that takes precedence over the Royal Prerogative and binds the Crown and everyone in the public service of the Crown. By enacting this war law, Parliament blocked the legal loopholes that have enabled past British leaders to commit war crimes with impunity. Criminal responsibility for the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes now lies with those who commit them, those who commission them and those who condone or support them, and all such persons can be held to account for these crimes in court.
Article 25 of the Rome Statute and sections 51 and 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 not only place criminal responsibility for the deaths caused by war on the Monarch, the Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet, senior civil servants, MPs and the military commanders responsible for commissioning acts of war; but equally place criminal responsibility on the servicemen and women, arms manufacturers, suppliers and taxpayers who aid, abet, incite or facilitate the commission of these crimes. No longer can individuals evade joint responsibility for crimes committed by our political leaders.
All military personnel, taxpayers and ordinary citizens who support, obey or condone the orders of their government or Parliament to wage aggressive war in which people are killed, are not only criminally liable for a crime against peace under the Nuremburg Principles, but under this new legislation they become accessories to the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and render themselves liable to prosecution in Britain or The Hague.
It is a common error in Britain to believe that the law is different or somehow suspended in times of war. This is not the case. That the nation is at war provides no legal protection, excuse or defence to these crimes. This means that since 2002, if one or more persons is injured or killed through the deliberate action of Britain’s military forces against a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, then a crime of genocide has been committed and those responsible for it are criminally liable and may be indicted and tried for the offence. So for example if an RAF officer under orders fires a rocket or drops a bomb that causes death or injury to men, women and children in Iraq, then he or she together with the political, civil and military commanders who commissioned the bombing can be charged with a war crime. If any member of HM armed forces intentionally kills or injures one or more persons who are members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as part of a widespread or systematic attack on that group, then both the individual killer and all those in the chain of command responsible for giving the orders to attack, are criminally responsible for the crimes of ‘genocide’ or ‘conduct ancillary to genocide’.
The principle of international law, which under certain circumstances protects the representatives of a state, cannot be applied to acts which are condemned as criminal by international law. The authors of these facts cannot shelter themselves behind their official position in order to be freed from punishment in appropriate proceedings.
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal
Laws governing the conduct of
war
The Geneva Conventions
The Chemical, Biological and Toxin Weapons Conventions
The Landmines Convention
The Convention against Torture
The law prohibiting Conspiracy
The Offences against the Person Act 1861
The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
This section provides a brief description of the main laws that have been adopted and ratified by Britain and a majority of the world’s nation states to protect humanity and guarantee civilized non-violent peaceful behaviour between nation states.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Geneva Conventions
The Chemical, Biological and Toxin Weapons Conventions
The Landmines Convention
The Convention against Torture
The law prohibiting Conspiracy
The Offences against the Person Act 1861
The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
This section provides a brief description of the main laws that have been adopted and ratified by Britain and a majority of the world’s nation states to protect humanity and guarantee civilized non-violent peaceful behaviour between nation states.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Geneva Conventions.
The first Geneva Convention protecting the sick and wounded in war was signed in 1864. In 1949 four further Conventions were signed followed by two Protocols in 1977. These consolidated the protections and prohibitions of earlier conventions and extended them to civilians. They govern the conduct of military affairs and regulate such things as the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war, wounded, sick and shipwrecked persons; free passage for the Red Cross, obligations to record deaths and inform relatives, prohibitions on attacks on hospitals, water supplies and water treatment plants and the types of weapons that may or may not be used. These prohibitions are now incorporated as war crimes in the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court Act 2001.
The Chemical, Biological and Toxin Weapons Conventions
These international treaties were ratified by Britain with the enactment of The Chemical Weapons Act in 1996 and The Biological Weapons Act in 1974. These Acts of Parliament incorporate the obligations arising from the treaties into domestic law and forbid the manufacture, possession and use of chemical, biological and toxin weapons.
The Landmines Convention
Stimulated by Princess Diana and the horrific deaths and injuries inflicted on children, the International Landmines Convention was agreed in 1997 forbidding the manufacture, possession or use of landmines and anti-personnel explosives. This treaty was ratified by Britain in 1998 with the enactment of the Landmines Act.
The Convention against Torture
The International Treaty Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment which prohibits all forms of torture, came into effect in 1985 and was incorporated into British legislation in section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The Law prohibiting Conspiracy
The Criminal Law Act 1977 introduced conspiracy into Statute law:
“If a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which amounts to or involves the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question.”
The crime of conspiracy applies to all criminal offences. It therefore applies to the
planning and preparation of wars of aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity, war
crimes, murder and any of the other crimes associated with war and military conflict. If
anyone takes part in the planning, commissioning or support of any of these crimes they
become criminally liable for conspiracy to commit the crime.
The Offences Against the Person Act 1861
“Whosoever shall solicit, encourage, persuade, or endeavour to persuade, or shall propose to any person, to murder any other person, whether he be a subject of Her Majesty or not, and whether he be within the Queen’s dominions or not, shall be guilty of an offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for life.”
This means that any MP, serviceman, journalist, political advisor, commentator, taxi driver, after dinner speaker or visitor to Britain who says or does anything in support of a war of aggression or an armed attack that results in the death of one or more persons, commits a serious crime. This applies at all times, and the fact that we are at war provides no legal excuse or defence to offenders.
The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender.
This law applies to every adult in this country and to all domestic and international war laws. If anyone aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of any of the offences mentioned in this volume, then they become an accessory to the crime and will be treated in exactly the same way as if they were the person who started the wars, dropped the bombs or committed the war crimes. They too will become war criminals.
The Offences Against the Person Act 1861
“Whosoever shall solicit, encourage, persuade, or endeavour to persuade, or shall propose to any person, to murder any other person, whether he be a subject of Her Majesty or not, and whether he be within the Queen’s dominions or not, shall be guilty of an offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for life.”
This means that any MP, serviceman, journalist, political advisor, commentator, taxi driver, after dinner speaker or visitor to Britain who says or does anything in support of a war of aggression or an armed attack that results in the death of one or more persons, commits a serious crime. This applies at all times, and the fact that we are at war provides no legal excuse or defence to offenders.
The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender.
This law applies to every adult in this country and to all domestic and international war laws. If anyone aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of any of the offences mentioned in this volume, then they become an accessory to the crime and will be treated in exactly the same way as if they were the person who started the wars, dropped the bombs or committed the war crimes. They too will become war criminals.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
In 1948, the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the forerunner to the European Convention on Human Rights and Britain’s Human Rights Act 1998, the Declaration recognised that the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family are the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, and that basic human rights and freedoms must be protected by the rule of law.
WHEREAS recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, WHEREAS disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, WHEREAS it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, WHEREAS it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, WHEREAS the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, WHEREAS Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, WHEREAS a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge, now therefore proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
ARTICLE 1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
ARTICLE 2 Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
ARTICLE 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
In 1948, the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the forerunner to the European Convention on Human Rights and Britain’s Human Rights Act 1998, the Declaration recognised that the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family are the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, and that basic human rights and freedoms must be protected by the rule of law.
WHEREAS recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, WHEREAS disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, WHEREAS it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, WHEREAS it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, WHEREAS the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, WHEREAS Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, WHEREAS a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge, now therefore proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
ARTICLE 1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
ARTICLE 2 Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
ARTICLE 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
ARTICLE 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave
trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
ARTICLE 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
ARTICLE 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
ARTICLE 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of the Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
ARTICLE 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
ARTICLE 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
ARTICLE 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
ARTICLE 11 (1) Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed.
ARTICLE 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
ARTICLE 13 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
ARTICLE 14 (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2)This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
ARTICLE 15 (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
ARTICLE 16 (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are
ARTICLE 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
ARTICLE 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
ARTICLE 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of the Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
ARTICLE 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
ARTICLE 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
ARTICLE 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
ARTICLE 11 (1) Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed.
ARTICLE 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
ARTICLE 13 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
ARTICLE 14 (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2)This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
ARTICLE 15 (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
ARTICLE 16 (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are
entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the
intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of
society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
ARTICLE 17 (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
ARTICLE 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
ARTICLE 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
ARTICLE 20 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
ARTICLE 21 (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
ARTICLE 22 Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co- operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
ARTICLE 23 (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
ARTICLE 24 Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
ARTICLE 25 (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
ARTICLE 17 (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
ARTICLE 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
ARTICLE 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
ARTICLE 20 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
ARTICLE 21 (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
ARTICLE 22 Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co- operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
ARTICLE 23 (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
ARTICLE 24 Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
ARTICLE 25 (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
ARTICLE 26 (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at
least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be
compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally
available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of
merit. (2)Education shall be directed to the full development of the human
personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all
nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United
Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the
kind of education that shall be given to their children.
ARTICLE 27 (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
ARTICLE 28 Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
ARTICLE 29 (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of mortality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
ARTICLE 30 Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
It is a sorry truth that successive British Governments have conspicuously failed to inform and educate the people of Britain of their individual and collective duty to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. As a result few if any of our political, civil and military leaders know, understand or uphold these fundamental rights.
“Humanity has paid a heavy price for the lesson that nothing is more tragic and cruel than war. I believe that we have as our first priority an obligation to our children to open a clear and
reliable path to peace in the twenty first century.”
Daisaku Ikeda - Buddhist Leader
ARTICLE 27 (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
ARTICLE 28 Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
ARTICLE 29 (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of mortality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
ARTICLE 30 Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
It is a sorry truth that successive British Governments have conspicuously failed to inform and educate the people of Britain of their individual and collective duty to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. As a result few if any of our political, civil and military leaders know, understand or uphold these fundamental rights.
“Humanity has paid a heavy price for the lesson that nothing is more tragic and cruel than war. I believe that we have as our first priority an obligation to our children to open a clear and
reliable path to peace in the twenty first century.”
Daisaku Ikeda - Buddhist Leader
THE WARFARE CODE
The laws of war apply to everyone regardless of their official role or position and aim to prevent harm or the loss of life and ensure that international disputes are settled peacefully. The main laws governing warfare and the use of armed force are the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War [Kellogg-Briand Pact], the UN Charter, the Nuremburg Principles, the Genocide Convention, the Geneva Conventions, the Weapons Conventions and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In essence the laws of war state that:
The laws of war apply to everyone regardless of their official role or position and aim to prevent harm or the loss of life and ensure that international disputes are settled peacefully. The main laws governing warfare and the use of armed force are the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War [Kellogg-Briand Pact], the UN Charter, the Nuremburg Principles, the Genocide Convention, the Geneva Conventions, the Weapons Conventions and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In essence the laws of war state that:
-
All international disputes must be settled peacefully without the use of armed force.
-
War between nation states is prohibited and is illegal.
-
The only circumstance in which the use of armed force is lawful occurs in defence of a state
under attack.
-
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is
responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
-
That a person who commits a crime under international law acts as Head of State, a
Member of Parliament or a responsible Government official does not relieve him from
responsibility under international law.
-
That a person acts on an order of Government or a superior does not relieve him from
responsibility under international law provided a moral choice is in fact possible to him.
-
Planning, initiating or taking part in a war of aggression or an armed attack on another state
is illegal and constitutes ‘a crime against peace’.
-
The action of wilfully killing or harming a person is a crime.
-
The action of torturing a person is a crime.
-
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against
humanity is a crime under international law.
-
Setting out to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part, is a
crime of genocide.
-
Aiding, abetting, assisting or supporting fatal armed attacks on members of a national,
ethnic, racial or religious group is a crime of conduct ancillary to genocide.
-
The manufacture, possession or use of chemical, biological or toxin weapons is a crime.
-
The manufacture, possession or use of landmines or anti-personnel explosives is a crime.
Enforcing War Law
Holding leaders to account for their actions Holding Government to account for war crimes Co-opting your MP
Impeachment
Reporting crimes to the Police
Reporting crimes to the International Criminal Court Private Criminal Prosecution
Obtaining an Injunction
Applying for Judicial Review
Withholding tax
Refusing Orders
Law is worthless if it is not enforced. The benefit derived from Nuremburg was the knowledge that leaders can be tried, convicted and punished as war criminals. At last it was possible to hold national leaders to account for their war crimes in court. So far however this principle has only been applied to a few leaders on the losing side.
If President Lyndon Johnson had been tried and convicted of war crimes for the bombing of Vietnam, Prime Ministers Anthony Eden for the Suez debacle, Margaret Thatcher for the sinking of the Belgrano, Saddam Hussein for gassing the Kurds and George Bush Snr for the Baghdad road massacre, it is unlikely that George Bush Jnr and Tony Blair would have contemplated waging war against Iraq.
The following section outlines preventive actions that can be taken by MPs, law enforcement authorities, servicemen and women and taxpayers to ensure that our political leaders and government officers uphold and enforce war law and never again involve Britain in an illegal war or the killing of innocent people.
Holding leaders to account for their actions Holding Government to account for war crimes Co-opting your MP
Impeachment
Reporting crimes to the Police
Reporting crimes to the International Criminal Court Private Criminal Prosecution
Obtaining an Injunction
Applying for Judicial Review
Withholding tax
Refusing Orders
Law is worthless if it is not enforced. The benefit derived from Nuremburg was the knowledge that leaders can be tried, convicted and punished as war criminals. At last it was possible to hold national leaders to account for their war crimes in court. So far however this principle has only been applied to a few leaders on the losing side.
If President Lyndon Johnson had been tried and convicted of war crimes for the bombing of Vietnam, Prime Ministers Anthony Eden for the Suez debacle, Margaret Thatcher for the sinking of the Belgrano, Saddam Hussein for gassing the Kurds and George Bush Snr for the Baghdad road massacre, it is unlikely that George Bush Jnr and Tony Blair would have contemplated waging war against Iraq.
The following section outlines preventive actions that can be taken by MPs, law enforcement authorities, servicemen and women and taxpayers to ensure that our political leaders and government officers uphold and enforce war law and never again involve Britain in an illegal war or the killing of innocent people.
Holding leaders to account for their actions
The Judgement of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal propounded and reinforced the doctrine of individual responsibility. Every citizen has an overarching duty to mankind to prevent their government from waging a war of aggression.
“The very essence of the Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law.”
All wars are started by political leaders and never by the people. Since 1946 it has been a legal duty for citizens to disobey the orders of any political leader, military commander, law enforcement officer, judge or government official who violates the laws of war. Unfortunately few if any British citizens understand that they have a legal duty to disobey the British Government when it breaches the international laws against war.
If German citizens had stood up in numbers to prevent Hitler from waging wars of aggression, the Second World War would never have occurred. If Britons had refused to obey the illegal orders of Parliament and the Prime Minister in March 2003, then Britain would never have got involved in the war with Iraq. If MPs had known of and upheld the laws of war they would not have voted in favour of the illegal invasion and occupation. If the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee had properly scrutinized the actions of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our representatives at the United Nations, the possibility of involvement in armed conflict would never have arisen. If taxpayers had refused to handover taxes to the British and American Governments to enable them to pay for the war, it would not have taken place.
The following suggestions are some of the non-violent ways in which MPs and citizens can prevent leaders from initiating or waging wars of aggression.
Holding Government to account
A primary duty of an MP is to hold the executive to account for their actions. When elected to Parliament, MPs appointed to a role in government often discover that they have a conflict of interest between their duty to represent their constituents’ interests, their duty to revise and uphold the law, their duty to scrutinise government action, their duties in government, their duty to their political party, and their duty to their party leader, their duty to the monarch and their duty to the nation. Unfortunately Britain’s flawed governance system causes many of them to give their duties to their constituents a lower priority than their desire to acquiesce to Ministerial commands.
In matters of war and the use of armed force, Ministers may need to be reminded by MPs of their legal duties. If they forget those duties, they should be reminded that in war, thousands of human lives are at risk and that their primary duty to mankind under the Nuremburg law is to prevent their government from waging war and killing people.
The Judgement of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal propounded and reinforced the doctrine of individual responsibility. Every citizen has an overarching duty to mankind to prevent their government from waging a war of aggression.
“The very essence of the Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law.”
All wars are started by political leaders and never by the people. Since 1946 it has been a legal duty for citizens to disobey the orders of any political leader, military commander, law enforcement officer, judge or government official who violates the laws of war. Unfortunately few if any British citizens understand that they have a legal duty to disobey the British Government when it breaches the international laws against war.
If German citizens had stood up in numbers to prevent Hitler from waging wars of aggression, the Second World War would never have occurred. If Britons had refused to obey the illegal orders of Parliament and the Prime Minister in March 2003, then Britain would never have got involved in the war with Iraq. If MPs had known of and upheld the laws of war they would not have voted in favour of the illegal invasion and occupation. If the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee had properly scrutinized the actions of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our representatives at the United Nations, the possibility of involvement in armed conflict would never have arisen. If taxpayers had refused to handover taxes to the British and American Governments to enable them to pay for the war, it would not have taken place.
The following suggestions are some of the non-violent ways in which MPs and citizens can prevent leaders from initiating or waging wars of aggression.
Holding Government to account
A primary duty of an MP is to hold the executive to account for their actions. When elected to Parliament, MPs appointed to a role in government often discover that they have a conflict of interest between their duty to represent their constituents’ interests, their duty to revise and uphold the law, their duty to scrutinise government action, their duties in government, their duty to their political party, and their duty to their party leader, their duty to the monarch and their duty to the nation. Unfortunately Britain’s flawed governance system causes many of them to give their duties to their constituents a lower priority than their desire to acquiesce to Ministerial commands.
In matters of war and the use of armed force, Ministers may need to be reminded by MPs of their legal duties. If they forget those duties, they should be reminded that in war, thousands of human lives are at risk and that their primary duty to mankind under the Nuremburg law is to prevent their government from waging war and killing people.
The very essence of the [London] Charter is that individuals have international
duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the
individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while
acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in authorising action
moves outside its competence under international law...
It may be necessary to remind MPs and Ministers of the serious implications for them as individuals if they take part in or support a violation of the laws of war.
Co-opting your MP
In a Parliamentary democracy the official channel open to citizens enabling them to challenge the actions or decisions of government is through their MP. MPs have a duty to represent the interests of all their constituents, regardless of their political persuasion or affiliation. In the event of a war or involvement in armed conflict, approach your MP and demand that they uphold the law and inform the government of the illegality of its actions. If an MP fails to do so, remind them of their duty under the Nuremburg law and let them know that should they condone or support the Government’s plans, they render themselves criminally liable as an accessory to genocide and war crimes under section 52 of The International Criminal Court Act.
Impeachment by Parliament
It is more than 150 years since the last successful impeachment in Britain of a Minister of State. Despite recent valiant efforts by Plaid Cymru and Scottish Nationalist MPs the chances of successfully impeaching the Prime Minister for waging a war of aggression and crimes against peace are slim, but this should not stop MPs from the attempt. In theory no-one, even the Queen or the Prime Minister, is above the law. Unfortunately Britain’s law enforcement authorities have become corrupt over the years and are refusing to investigate war crimes committed by The Prime Minister, the Queen, and members of Britain’s political, civil and military establishment. This abject failure of law enforcement in Britain means that impeachment by Members of Parliament may be the only method available of holding our political leaders to account to the nation for their war crimes.
Reporting crimes to the police
The first act for MPs and citizens if they discover war crimes in preparation or taking place is to report the information to the police. This applies to war crimes in exactly the same way as it applies to offences such as burglary, assault or fraud. Unfortunately most police officers are ignorant of war law and fail to understand or handle complaints against Ministers of State. If this is the case then refer them to this document pointing out offences that are taking place or about to take place. It may help to remind the Police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Courts that they have a duty under the Rome Statute and international law to enforce war law and to initiate criminal proceedings against all offenders regardless of their role, rank or position.
It may be necessary to remind MPs and Ministers of the serious implications for them as individuals if they take part in or support a violation of the laws of war.
Co-opting your MP
In a Parliamentary democracy the official channel open to citizens enabling them to challenge the actions or decisions of government is through their MP. MPs have a duty to represent the interests of all their constituents, regardless of their political persuasion or affiliation. In the event of a war or involvement in armed conflict, approach your MP and demand that they uphold the law and inform the government of the illegality of its actions. If an MP fails to do so, remind them of their duty under the Nuremburg law and let them know that should they condone or support the Government’s plans, they render themselves criminally liable as an accessory to genocide and war crimes under section 52 of The International Criminal Court Act.
Impeachment by Parliament
It is more than 150 years since the last successful impeachment in Britain of a Minister of State. Despite recent valiant efforts by Plaid Cymru and Scottish Nationalist MPs the chances of successfully impeaching the Prime Minister for waging a war of aggression and crimes against peace are slim, but this should not stop MPs from the attempt. In theory no-one, even the Queen or the Prime Minister, is above the law. Unfortunately Britain’s law enforcement authorities have become corrupt over the years and are refusing to investigate war crimes committed by The Prime Minister, the Queen, and members of Britain’s political, civil and military establishment. This abject failure of law enforcement in Britain means that impeachment by Members of Parliament may be the only method available of holding our political leaders to account to the nation for their war crimes.
Reporting crimes to the police
The first act for MPs and citizens if they discover war crimes in preparation or taking place is to report the information to the police. This applies to war crimes in exactly the same way as it applies to offences such as burglary, assault or fraud. Unfortunately most police officers are ignorant of war law and fail to understand or handle complaints against Ministers of State. If this is the case then refer them to this document pointing out offences that are taking place or about to take place. It may help to remind the Police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Courts that they have a duty under the Rome Statute and international law to enforce war law and to initiate criminal proceedings against all offenders regardless of their role, rank or position.
Reporting crimes to the International Criminal Court
The primary responsibility for initiating criminal proceedings for the offences of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and conduct ancillary to such crimes lies with the law enforcement authorities of the State whose nationals have committed the offences. Only if domestic law enforcement authorities prove unwilling or unable to prosecute leaders responsible for the crimes, can the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague take over the proceedings. Police or private citizens wishing to initiate criminal proceedings against British leaders should approach the Attorney General for his consent to the proceedings, and only if he declines to give his consent should the ICC in The Hague be approached. Even though the chances of the ICC summoning up the courage to prosecute British war criminals are slim, it is important to persist. The world will never eradicate warfare if political leaders are able to violate these laws at will. When the day arrives that the International Criminal Court indicts, prosecutes and convicts a Head of State of the stature of Bush, Blair, Sharon or Putin, for a crime against humanity, the world will immediately become a safer place.
Initiating a Private Criminal Prosecution
If approaches to the Police, Crown Prosecution Service and Courts have failed, it is open to anyone to bring a private criminal prosecution in Britain. Although it is an unusual remedy, it is not impossible. It will depend upon the difficult task of finding a judge with both integrity and probity.
Obtaining an injunction
Another remedy open to citizens wishing to prevent ministers of state from taking illegal action, is to apply to the courts for an injunction preventing them from doing so.
Applying for a judicial review
A further remedy available to anyone wishing to prevent warfare is to request a judicial review of the relevant government decision(s). A judicial review is the process whereby government decisions are challenged in court. Unfortunately at present Britain’s High Court judges are not prepared to grant permission for a judicial review of issues related to the legality of war and the country’s foreign affairs, claiming incorrectly that such issues are non-justiciable and not open to challenge through the courts. This outdated and undemocratic support for warmongers and abuse of the rule of law provides a substantial challenge to anyone wishing to pursue this route, but don’t let that put you off. One day a judge with both integrity and probity will challenge the status quo and in doing so will bring Britain’s outdated justice system striding forward into the 19th century.
The primary responsibility for initiating criminal proceedings for the offences of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and conduct ancillary to such crimes lies with the law enforcement authorities of the State whose nationals have committed the offences. Only if domestic law enforcement authorities prove unwilling or unable to prosecute leaders responsible for the crimes, can the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague take over the proceedings. Police or private citizens wishing to initiate criminal proceedings against British leaders should approach the Attorney General for his consent to the proceedings, and only if he declines to give his consent should the ICC in The Hague be approached. Even though the chances of the ICC summoning up the courage to prosecute British war criminals are slim, it is important to persist. The world will never eradicate warfare if political leaders are able to violate these laws at will. When the day arrives that the International Criminal Court indicts, prosecutes and convicts a Head of State of the stature of Bush, Blair, Sharon or Putin, for a crime against humanity, the world will immediately become a safer place.
Initiating a Private Criminal Prosecution
If approaches to the Police, Crown Prosecution Service and Courts have failed, it is open to anyone to bring a private criminal prosecution in Britain. Although it is an unusual remedy, it is not impossible. It will depend upon the difficult task of finding a judge with both integrity and probity.
Obtaining an injunction
Another remedy open to citizens wishing to prevent ministers of state from taking illegal action, is to apply to the courts for an injunction preventing them from doing so.
Applying for a judicial review
A further remedy available to anyone wishing to prevent warfare is to request a judicial review of the relevant government decision(s). A judicial review is the process whereby government decisions are challenged in court. Unfortunately at present Britain’s High Court judges are not prepared to grant permission for a judicial review of issues related to the legality of war and the country’s foreign affairs, claiming incorrectly that such issues are non-justiciable and not open to challenge through the courts. This outdated and undemocratic support for warmongers and abuse of the rule of law provides a substantial challenge to anyone wishing to pursue this route, but don’t let that put you off. One day a judge with both integrity and probity will challenge the status quo and in doing so will bring Britain’s outdated justice system striding forward into the 19th century.
Committing a minor crime to prevent a greater evil
It might seem inappropriate when advocating the rule of law to suggest committing a criminal offence, but the horrific nature of the crimes of waging war or committing genocide demand a forceful response. When all other approaches have failed it may be necessary to commit a criminal offence to attempt to prevent the government from waging war or committing serious crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. It is a defence in law3 to use reasonable force to prevent crime. If a person commits what would otherwise be a crime in order to prevent ‘a greater evil’ such as death or serious injury to a person, they have a valid defence of ‘lawful excuse’. War and military conflict is a prime example of ‘a greater evil’.
Not only are law-abiding citizens obliged under the Nuremburg law to disobey the instructions and commands of a government when it violates the laws of war, but we are obliged by the tenets of morality to breach lesser laws in the interests of preventing the deaths of innocent men, women and children. If you immobilise military equipment, break into a military base or disable weapon delivery systems with the purpose of halting or preventing war and you do it without harming another person you have a valid defence in law should you be brought before a court.
Withholding tax
An effective way of halting war is to stop the money that pays for war. It is a little known fact that since July 1st 2002 it has been a criminal offence in every State that has ratified the Rome Statute to provide the means for the commission of the offences of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes [Article 25]. This implies that it is a crime of ‘conduct ancillary to genocide’ in Britain to handover tax payments to the Inland Revenue and thereby facilitate the commission of genocide. If as a taxpayer [individuals or businesses] you have evidence that members of the government are committing any one of the six ICCA crimes, you are duty bound in law to refuse to handover any taxes, duties, fines or loans that could be used by the government to facilitate the crimes. For many years courageous activists have made the moral choice to withhold a portion [10%] of their taxes from the government as a matter of conscience, but now, with the ratification of the Rome Statute, they have the criminal law on their side. Every taxpayer has a duty in law to refuse to withhold tax from the Government, IF the Government uses it to facilitate the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
Refusing Orders
All service personnel have a legal duty to refuse to obey manifestly illegal orders4. Unfortunately because of widespread ignorance of war law only a few courageous individuals do so. If you do not know when an order is illegal, you cannot know which order to disobey. Ignorance of war law pervades every rank in Britain’s Armed Forces.
3 4
It might seem inappropriate when advocating the rule of law to suggest committing a criminal offence, but the horrific nature of the crimes of waging war or committing genocide demand a forceful response. When all other approaches have failed it may be necessary to commit a criminal offence to attempt to prevent the government from waging war or committing serious crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. It is a defence in law3 to use reasonable force to prevent crime. If a person commits what would otherwise be a crime in order to prevent ‘a greater evil’ such as death or serious injury to a person, they have a valid defence of ‘lawful excuse’. War and military conflict is a prime example of ‘a greater evil’.
Not only are law-abiding citizens obliged under the Nuremburg law to disobey the instructions and commands of a government when it violates the laws of war, but we are obliged by the tenets of morality to breach lesser laws in the interests of preventing the deaths of innocent men, women and children. If you immobilise military equipment, break into a military base or disable weapon delivery systems with the purpose of halting or preventing war and you do it without harming another person you have a valid defence in law should you be brought before a court.
Withholding tax
An effective way of halting war is to stop the money that pays for war. It is a little known fact that since July 1st 2002 it has been a criminal offence in every State that has ratified the Rome Statute to provide the means for the commission of the offences of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes [Article 25]. This implies that it is a crime of ‘conduct ancillary to genocide’ in Britain to handover tax payments to the Inland Revenue and thereby facilitate the commission of genocide. If as a taxpayer [individuals or businesses] you have evidence that members of the government are committing any one of the six ICCA crimes, you are duty bound in law to refuse to handover any taxes, duties, fines or loans that could be used by the government to facilitate the crimes. For many years courageous activists have made the moral choice to withhold a portion [10%] of their taxes from the government as a matter of conscience, but now, with the ratification of the Rome Statute, they have the criminal law on their side. Every taxpayer has a duty in law to refuse to withhold tax from the Government, IF the Government uses it to facilitate the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
Refusing Orders
All service personnel have a legal duty to refuse to obey manifestly illegal orders4. Unfortunately because of widespread ignorance of war law only a few courageous individuals do so. If you do not know when an order is illegal, you cannot know which order to disobey. Ignorance of war law pervades every rank in Britain’s Armed Forces.
3 4
Section 3 The Criminal Law Act 1967
Manual of Military Law
If Admiral Boyce had been better informed of domestic and international war law, it is
likely that he would have refused to initiate the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq,
and the mass murder which ensued would never have occurred.
As the people most at risk and with the most to lose [their lives] from abuses of war law, servicemen and women as well as their families must be informed of war law so that they know and understand precisely when an order is legal or illegal. If they decide that what they are being asked to do could harm another individual or even put that person’s life at risk, then they must refuse the order. Equally it is up to every member of society to support the individual serviceman or woman who takes the decision to refuse illegal orders. Unless they are rewarded for their courage in upholding the law and protected from prosecution by the government, society will never be able to uphold international war law against the forces of evil at the heart of Government.
Every citizen has a duty to refuse illegal orders. If for example you are working in an armaments factory manufacturing cluster bombs then it is your legal duty to refuse to do so. Not only is your company breaching the Landmines Act 1998, but any use of those landmines by Britain’s Armed Forces in which innocent men, women or children are killed or injured, constitutes a criminal offence under the International Criminal Court Act and makes you an accessory to the offence. You may then be charged and convicted with ‘conduct ancillary to genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime’. Every individual has a duty to check that their activities or work responsibilities are entirely legitimate and in no way breach the laws of war.
As the people most at risk and with the most to lose [their lives] from abuses of war law, servicemen and women as well as their families must be informed of war law so that they know and understand precisely when an order is legal or illegal. If they decide that what they are being asked to do could harm another individual or even put that person’s life at risk, then they must refuse the order. Equally it is up to every member of society to support the individual serviceman or woman who takes the decision to refuse illegal orders. Unless they are rewarded for their courage in upholding the law and protected from prosecution by the government, society will never be able to uphold international war law against the forces of evil at the heart of Government.
Every citizen has a duty to refuse illegal orders. If for example you are working in an armaments factory manufacturing cluster bombs then it is your legal duty to refuse to do so. Not only is your company breaching the Landmines Act 1998, but any use of those landmines by Britain’s Armed Forces in which innocent men, women or children are killed or injured, constitutes a criminal offence under the International Criminal Court Act and makes you an accessory to the offence. You may then be charged and convicted with ‘conduct ancillary to genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime’. Every individual has a duty to check that their activities or work responsibilities are entirely legitimate and in no way breach the laws of war.
False Legal Advice
on the legality of the war with Iraq
In March 2003 the Prime Minister received and passed on false legal advice on the legality of the proposed war with Iraq. Tony Blair’s false assurances that the war would be legal deceived Parliament and the nation into supporting America in waging an illegal war of aggression. The subsequent armed invasion and occupation of Iraq, which killed and injured tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, breached all the international laws against war and violated the world’s most important treaties.
Not only was the legal advice false and wrong in law, but it omitted all mention of the international treaties, conventions and laws against war. Instead of warning MPs and Peers that military action would be illegal; the Attorney General provided a false legal rationale to the Prime Minister basing his claim on the spurious argument of the revival of a 12 year old Security Council Resolution relating to the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait.
Deceptions in the legal advice included the lies that armed force can be authorised by the Security Council, that it can be used to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe or even to pre-empt an attack. In their advice to the Foreign Affairs Committee, the FCO made the false claim that Security Council resolution 1441 revived an earlier authorisation for the use of force. This was another lie; resolution 1441 did no such thing.
If in the future, Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Peers, military officers and others are to make legitimate decisions relating to warfare and military conflict, they must be briefed correctly on international war law and the rights and wrongs inherent in military conflict. To this end we have developed an example of the correct legal advice which should have been provided by government legal officers to the Prime Minister and MPs prior to the war with Iraq. As we cannot trust the Prime Minister, the Attorney General or Government law officers to provide us with correct legal advice on the legality of war, we recommend that decision makers use this material to help them determine for themselves whether planned military conflict complies with or violates international law.
We recommend that this document or a similar publication becomes required reading for MPs, peers, military officers and senior civil servants prior to taking up their position. If they are to make valid decisions about waging war, which are the most important decisions a leader or government officer ever has to make, they must be fully and correctly informed on the law and the personal implications should they breach it. It would also help if the media publish this document in full in the event that Britain is ever again involved in preparations for war. No citizen or taxpayer should fund war or get involved in the use of armed force without fully understanding their legal position and the implications of unwittingly becoming an accessory to the world’s worst war crimes.
In March 2003 the Prime Minister received and passed on false legal advice on the legality of the proposed war with Iraq. Tony Blair’s false assurances that the war would be legal deceived Parliament and the nation into supporting America in waging an illegal war of aggression. The subsequent armed invasion and occupation of Iraq, which killed and injured tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, breached all the international laws against war and violated the world’s most important treaties.
Not only was the legal advice false and wrong in law, but it omitted all mention of the international treaties, conventions and laws against war. Instead of warning MPs and Peers that military action would be illegal; the Attorney General provided a false legal rationale to the Prime Minister basing his claim on the spurious argument of the revival of a 12 year old Security Council Resolution relating to the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait.
Deceptions in the legal advice included the lies that armed force can be authorised by the Security Council, that it can be used to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe or even to pre-empt an attack. In their advice to the Foreign Affairs Committee, the FCO made the false claim that Security Council resolution 1441 revived an earlier authorisation for the use of force. This was another lie; resolution 1441 did no such thing.
If in the future, Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Peers, military officers and others are to make legitimate decisions relating to warfare and military conflict, they must be briefed correctly on international war law and the rights and wrongs inherent in military conflict. To this end we have developed an example of the correct legal advice which should have been provided by government legal officers to the Prime Minister and MPs prior to the war with Iraq. As we cannot trust the Prime Minister, the Attorney General or Government law officers to provide us with correct legal advice on the legality of war, we recommend that decision makers use this material to help them determine for themselves whether planned military conflict complies with or violates international law.
We recommend that this document or a similar publication becomes required reading for MPs, peers, military officers and senior civil servants prior to taking up their position. If they are to make valid decisions about waging war, which are the most important decisions a leader or government officer ever has to make, they must be fully and correctly informed on the law and the personal implications should they breach it. It would also help if the media publish this document in full in the event that Britain is ever again involved in preparations for war. No citizen or taxpayer should fund war or get involved in the use of armed force without fully understanding their legal position and the implications of unwittingly becoming an accessory to the world’s worst war crimes.
Correct Legal Advice
On the illegality of the war with Iraq
[Or what the Attorney General should have said in his legal advice to the Prime Minister if he had been doing his job correctly]
To: The Prime Minister From: The Attorney General March 2003
Military action against Iraq
You asked me for advice on the legality of military action against Iraq.
Be advised that the proposed armed attack on Iraq is illegal in international and domestic law, will violate major international treaties and render all those involved with the decision liable to prosecution for the most serious criminal offences in law. Under no circumstances should you entertain such a course of action.
If Britain joins America and invades Iraq we will be operating illegally. The use of sophisticated weapons to attack Iraq killing its citizens violates the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War, the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute, constitutes the crimes of ‘genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes’ under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, a crime against peace under the Nuremburg Principles as well as the common law crime of ‘murder’.
I attach a report detailing the grounds on which this advice is based. I recommend that every member of the Cabinet, every MP, senior civil servant, judge and military officer reads it and understands its implications before making decisions or publishing statements associated with the use of armed force.
Finally, I have included recommendations for a lawful non-violent approach to solving the problem of Saddam Hussein and for escaping from the commitments you made to George Bush. I hope this is of help, and remind you that I cannot support the proposal for war under any circumstances.
Attorney General
[Or what the Attorney General should have said in his legal advice to the Prime Minister if he had been doing his job correctly]
To: The Prime Minister From: The Attorney General March 2003
Military action against Iraq
You asked me for advice on the legality of military action against Iraq.
Be advised that the proposed armed attack on Iraq is illegal in international and domestic law, will violate major international treaties and render all those involved with the decision liable to prosecution for the most serious criminal offences in law. Under no circumstances should you entertain such a course of action.
If Britain joins America and invades Iraq we will be operating illegally. The use of sophisticated weapons to attack Iraq killing its citizens violates the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War, the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute, constitutes the crimes of ‘genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes’ under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, a crime against peace under the Nuremburg Principles as well as the common law crime of ‘murder’.
I attach a report detailing the grounds on which this advice is based. I recommend that every member of the Cabinet, every MP, senior civil servant, judge and military officer reads it and understands its implications before making decisions or publishing statements associated with the use of armed force.
Finally, I have included recommendations for a lawful non-violent approach to solving the problem of Saddam Hussein and for escaping from the commitments you made to George Bush. I hope this is of help, and remind you that I cannot support the proposal for war under any circumstances.
Attorney General
THE LEGAL GROUNDS AGAINST
WAR
[Ten reasons to avoid a war with Iraq]
1. All war is illegal.
Wars of aggression were outlawed by the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War in 1928. This treaty, known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, was the result of a decade of negotiations to prevent war and was motivated by the tragedy of World War I. The world’s major nations, including Britain, America, France, Germany and Japan signed and ratified the Pact, condemning recourse to war as an instrument of national policy and agreeing to settle all disputes by peaceful means. The treaty is still in force.
ARTICLE I The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.
ARTICLE II The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.
The proposed attack on Iraq will violate this solemn and binding treaty which formed the legal basis for the convictions of the German leaders at Nuremburg after the Second World War. Should you go ahead with the invasion of Iraq, we will all be personally liable for the same crime of waging a war of aggression for which Hitler’s colleagues were convicted and hanged in 1946.
2. Armed attacks on another State are illegal.
When we signed and ratified the UN Charter we made a binding agreement with all UN Member States never to threaten or attack them and to settle all disputes peacefully. The main terms are laid out in the Preamble and Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter, of which 2.3 and 2.4 outline the main agreements forbidding the use of armed force.
2.3 All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.
2.4 All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
[Ten reasons to avoid a war with Iraq]
1. All war is illegal.
Wars of aggression were outlawed by the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War in 1928. This treaty, known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, was the result of a decade of negotiations to prevent war and was motivated by the tragedy of World War I. The world’s major nations, including Britain, America, France, Germany and Japan signed and ratified the Pact, condemning recourse to war as an instrument of national policy and agreeing to settle all disputes by peaceful means. The treaty is still in force.
ARTICLE I The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.
ARTICLE II The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.
The proposed attack on Iraq will violate this solemn and binding treaty which formed the legal basis for the convictions of the German leaders at Nuremburg after the Second World War. Should you go ahead with the invasion of Iraq, we will all be personally liable for the same crime of waging a war of aggression for which Hitler’s colleagues were convicted and hanged in 1946.
2. Armed attacks on another State are illegal.
When we signed and ratified the UN Charter we made a binding agreement with all UN Member States never to threaten or attack them and to settle all disputes peacefully. The main terms are laid out in the Preamble and Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter, of which 2.3 and 2.4 outline the main agreements forbidding the use of armed force.
2.3 All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.
2.4 All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Both the Pact of Paris and the UN Charter were intended to eliminate the indiscriminate
slaughter of human beings and to ensure that in future all international disputes would
be solved peacefully through the application of the rule of law. An armed attack on Iraq
would breach this agreement and could put our membership of the Security Council at
risk.
-
Warfare is illegal in customary international law
The Judgment of the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials is the main customary international law relating to armed conflict between nations. When convicting the German leaders, the judges confirmed the illegality of war describing it as the supreme international crime.
“After the signing of the [Kellogg-Briand] Pact, any nation resorting to war as an instrument of national policy breaks the Pact. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war with its inevitable and terrible consequences are committing a crime in so doing.”
“The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
These statements are crystal clear. The proposed armed invasion of Iraq will constitute a war of aggression, will be illegal and will comprise the supreme international crime.
-
The removal of Saddam Hussein by force would be illegal.
Action taken against Saddam Hussein or his regime must be conducted according to international law. If you wish to stop his repression and cruelty to his people, then do so by legal means. This can be done by supporting concerted non-violent action under Security Council auspices to arrest him and place him on trial for his crimes. As I have mentioned before, to threaten or use armed force to bring about ‘regime change’ is illegal under the terms of the UN Charter.
-
Unilateral or bilateral action is illegal.
Chapter VII (Articles 39 - 51) of the UN Charter governs the activities of the Security Council. Article 39 makes it absolutely clear that it is the Security Council that must determine the existence of a threat to the peace, not its individual members. The proposed Coalition with America breaches the terms of the UN Charter.
6.
recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with
Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Pre-emptive attacks are illegal.
Pre-emptive attacks were made illegal 150 years ago as a result of Britain’s underhand pre-emptive attack on an American vessel “The Caroline” at Niagara. Article 51 of the UN Charter also makes it quite clear that the only circumstance in which a State may use armed force is after it has been attacked and before the Security Council has implemented its own measures to maintain peace and security.
51. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The law is clear. A pre-emptive attack on Iraq would be illegal. The only legitimate use of armed force against Iraq would be to defend ourselves if we were under attack. Should this occur we may legitimately use proportionate force to defend ourselves, but we may do so only until the point at which the Security Council implements measures to resolve the conflict and keep the peace. Should you attack Iraq, Iraq is legally entitled to defend itself and to call upon the UN Security Council for help in defending itself.
The Security Council cannot authorise war or the use of armed force.
The UN Security Council is a PEACEKEEPING body and it cannot authorise an armed military intervention into another country’s affairs. Articles 41 and 42 govern Security Council affairs and specify the measures it can take to diffuse conflict.
41. The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
42. Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it 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.
Be advised that in international law neither Britain nor America can decide the measures to employ against Saddam Hussein. Only the Security Council is authorised to decide such measures, and whatever they decide it must NOT involve the use of armed force.
Pre-emptive attacks are illegal.
Pre-emptive attacks were made illegal 150 years ago as a result of Britain’s underhand pre-emptive attack on an American vessel “The Caroline” at Niagara. Article 51 of the UN Charter also makes it quite clear that the only circumstance in which a State may use armed force is after it has been attacked and before the Security Council has implemented its own measures to maintain peace and security.
51. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The law is clear. A pre-emptive attack on Iraq would be illegal. The only legitimate use of armed force against Iraq would be to defend ourselves if we were under attack. Should this occur we may legitimately use proportionate force to defend ourselves, but we may do so only until the point at which the Security Council implements measures to resolve the conflict and keep the peace. Should you attack Iraq, Iraq is legally entitled to defend itself and to call upon the UN Security Council for help in defending itself.
The Security Council cannot authorise war or the use of armed force.
The UN Security Council is a PEACEKEEPING body and it cannot authorise an armed military intervention into another country’s affairs. Articles 41 and 42 govern Security Council affairs and specify the measures it can take to diffuse conflict.
41. The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
42. Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it 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.
Be advised that in international law neither Britain nor America can decide the measures to employ against Saddam Hussein. Only the Security Council is authorised to decide such measures, and whatever they decide it must NOT involve the use of armed force.
7.
8 Killing or injuring people is illegal
The willful killing of any person is a crime and is never countenanced, condoned or ‘right’ in law. The Human Rights Act 1998 makes this clear and specifies that the only exception occurs when a person is accused of a capital crime, arrested and tried in a duly constituted court of law and convicted of an offence for which the pre-ordained sentence is death. Then and only then is it legal to kill that person.
2.1 “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No-one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided in law.”
In war, if a serviceman is attacked and their life is threatened then they may use a weapon to halt the attack and disable their attacker, but deliberately killing their attacker, even if that person is wearing a uniform and classified as an enemy, is a crime under the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions. It is never legal for members of HM armed forces to use a weapon to kill another person. Just as it is a crime for the IRA to set off a bomb in a pub, or for Al Qaeda to fly planes into the World Trade Centre, it is a criminal offence to cause the death of another human being by ordering armed forces to fire a cruise missile into Baghdad, drop a cluster bomb in Basra or shoot a suspected bomber.
If an Iraqi dies as a result of the actions of Coalition forces, then all those responsible for giving or transmitting the orders that caused the death commit a criminal offence and can be prosecuted for murder and conspiracy to murder. These are crimes under the Accessories and Abettors Act, the Offences Against the Person Act, the Criminal Law Act 1977, and the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. Law that applies to one applies to all even in times of war. It will be wise for anyone involved in a decision to use armed force, to acquaint themselves with the criminal offences contained in these Statutes and the sentences that can be imposed on those convicted of an offence.
9. Killing Iraqis will constitute an act of Genocide.
Genocide is the most serious crime in international and domestic law. Under Article 25 of the Rome Statute and Section 51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, any British resident who intentionally kills members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group commits genocide. The legal definition of genocide is.
For the purpose of this Statute “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The willful killing of any person is a crime and is never countenanced, condoned or ‘right’ in law. The Human Rights Act 1998 makes this clear and specifies that the only exception occurs when a person is accused of a capital crime, arrested and tried in a duly constituted court of law and convicted of an offence for which the pre-ordained sentence is death. Then and only then is it legal to kill that person.
2.1 “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No-one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided in law.”
In war, if a serviceman is attacked and their life is threatened then they may use a weapon to halt the attack and disable their attacker, but deliberately killing their attacker, even if that person is wearing a uniform and classified as an enemy, is a crime under the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions. It is never legal for members of HM armed forces to use a weapon to kill another person. Just as it is a crime for the IRA to set off a bomb in a pub, or for Al Qaeda to fly planes into the World Trade Centre, it is a criminal offence to cause the death of another human being by ordering armed forces to fire a cruise missile into Baghdad, drop a cluster bomb in Basra or shoot a suspected bomber.
If an Iraqi dies as a result of the actions of Coalition forces, then all those responsible for giving or transmitting the orders that caused the death commit a criminal offence and can be prosecuted for murder and conspiracy to murder. These are crimes under the Accessories and Abettors Act, the Offences Against the Person Act, the Criminal Law Act 1977, and the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. Law that applies to one applies to all even in times of war. It will be wise for anyone involved in a decision to use armed force, to acquaint themselves with the criminal offences contained in these Statutes and the sentences that can be imposed on those convicted of an offence.
9. Killing Iraqis will constitute an act of Genocide.
Genocide is the most serious crime in international and domestic law. Under Article 25 of the Rome Statute and Section 51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, any British resident who intentionally kills members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group commits genocide. The legal definition of genocide is.
For the purpose of this Statute “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
When we enacted The International Criminal Court Act in 2001 we incorporated the
crimes of ‘genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes’ into domestic criminal
law.
It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime, or to engage in conduct ancillary to such an act. This applies to acts committed in England or Wales or outside the United Kingdom by a UK national, resident or person subject to UK service jurisdiction.
Should you go ahead with the decision to attack Iraq and cause the death of one or more Iraqi nationals, all those Britons involved in making, supporting or implementing the decision will be liable for crimes of ‘genocide’ or ‘conduct ancillary to genocide’ and subject to the sanctions of criminal law. The proposed invasion implies that you will almost certainly commit genocide. You may argue that you are not setting out with intent to destroy a national group, but as the legal meaning of “intent” is clearly defined in the legislation you will find it difficult to escape culpability. Anyone who chooses to use indiscriminate high explosive weapons such as cruise missiles, rockets and cluster bombs in place of the large number of non-violent alternatives available for dispute resolution demonstrates their intent to kill.
66. A person has intent in relation to ‘conduct’ where he means to engage in the conduct, and in relation to a consequence, where he means to cause the consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events.
You have acknowledged in public that casualties would be inevitable if the invasion goes ahead. This means that you are aware that deaths and serious injuries to Iraqi citizens [members of a national group] will ensue in the ordinary course of events. This public admission is proof of your intent to destroy part of a national group. It makes no difference if American, British, Australian or Spanish forces do the killing. In law everyone in the Coalition will be jointly and severally responsible for every Iraqi death resulting from the violence. It is important to remember that although the Americans have not ratified the Rome Statute and are not subject to its jurisdiction, Britain, Australia and Spain have ratified the Statute and their citizens can be held to account in The Hague for deaths caused by Coalition forces. If the ICC decides to prosecute us for one or more of these crimes, UK law enforcement authorities are legally obliged to arrest us and hand us over for trial in The Hague.
10. Leaders are responsible for the crimes of their subordinates.
Article 27 of the Rome Statute makes it quite clear that we will all be criminally liable
regardless of our position in Government or Parliament.
This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or Parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.
It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime, or to engage in conduct ancillary to such an act. This applies to acts committed in England or Wales or outside the United Kingdom by a UK national, resident or person subject to UK service jurisdiction.
Should you go ahead with the decision to attack Iraq and cause the death of one or more Iraqi nationals, all those Britons involved in making, supporting or implementing the decision will be liable for crimes of ‘genocide’ or ‘conduct ancillary to genocide’ and subject to the sanctions of criminal law. The proposed invasion implies that you will almost certainly commit genocide. You may argue that you are not setting out with intent to destroy a national group, but as the legal meaning of “intent” is clearly defined in the legislation you will find it difficult to escape culpability. Anyone who chooses to use indiscriminate high explosive weapons such as cruise missiles, rockets and cluster bombs in place of the large number of non-violent alternatives available for dispute resolution demonstrates their intent to kill.
66. A person has intent in relation to ‘conduct’ where he means to engage in the conduct, and in relation to a consequence, where he means to cause the consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events.
You have acknowledged in public that casualties would be inevitable if the invasion goes ahead. This means that you are aware that deaths and serious injuries to Iraqi citizens [members of a national group] will ensue in the ordinary course of events. This public admission is proof of your intent to destroy part of a national group. It makes no difference if American, British, Australian or Spanish forces do the killing. In law everyone in the Coalition will be jointly and severally responsible for every Iraqi death resulting from the violence. It is important to remember that although the Americans have not ratified the Rome Statute and are not subject to its jurisdiction, Britain, Australia and Spain have ratified the Statute and their citizens can be held to account in The Hague for deaths caused by Coalition forces. If the ICC decides to prosecute us for one or more of these crimes, UK law enforcement authorities are legally obliged to arrest us and hand us over for trial in The Hague.
10. Leaders are responsible for the crimes of their subordinates.
Article 27 of the Rome Statute makes it quite clear that we will all be criminally liable
regardless of our position in Government or Parliament.
This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or Parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.
Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of
a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court
from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.
All British residents are subject to this law. The Queen, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Cabinet, every MP, peer, military officer, civil servant, journalist or taxpayer who does anything to condone, support or take part in the use of armed force in which one or more persons are killed is bound by this law and subject to the sanctions of the court. It is our duty to inform everyone involved in the proposed war of the terms of this Act and the likelihood of their prosecution should any Iraqis be killed or injured.
[NB. It will be important to explain this law and its implications to Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth as I am reasonably certain that she is not aware of the serious implications it would have for her if she signs an order for HM Forces to take part in military conflict, let alone an illegal invasion and occupation of a member state of the United Nations.]
Sections 65 and 78 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 make it clear that regardless of who launches the rockets, fires the cruise missiles, drops the cluster bombs or deploys depleted uranium shells, the ultimate responsibility for the resulting deaths, injuries or destruction lies with those who ordered the attack to take place.
65. Responsibility of commanders and other superiors. A military commander, or a person effectively acting as a military commander, is responsible for offences committed by forces under his effective command and control or his effective authority and control... A person responsible under this section for an offence is regarded as aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of the offence.
78. Crown Application. This Act binds the Crown and applies to persons in the public service of the Crown.
IMPLICATIONS
As the proposed invasion and occupation of Iraq violates the laws against war, it will render those involved criminally liable in both domestic and international law. In the event that you go ahead with the invasion and Iraqi casualties ensue, British residents involved in aiding, abetting, counseling or procuring the commission of offences against the Iraqi people are liable to be charged with ‘conduct ancillary to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes’ under Section 52 of the ICC Act. Although it is never possible to arrest and try everyone responsible for war crimes, it is quite possible that up to 1000 political, civil and military leaders, including every member of the Cabinet and many of our colleagues in Parliament will be prosecuted for the world’s most serious crimes.
All British residents are subject to this law. The Queen, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Cabinet, every MP, peer, military officer, civil servant, journalist or taxpayer who does anything to condone, support or take part in the use of armed force in which one or more persons are killed is bound by this law and subject to the sanctions of the court. It is our duty to inform everyone involved in the proposed war of the terms of this Act and the likelihood of their prosecution should any Iraqis be killed or injured.
[NB. It will be important to explain this law and its implications to Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth as I am reasonably certain that she is not aware of the serious implications it would have for her if she signs an order for HM Forces to take part in military conflict, let alone an illegal invasion and occupation of a member state of the United Nations.]
Sections 65 and 78 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 make it clear that regardless of who launches the rockets, fires the cruise missiles, drops the cluster bombs or deploys depleted uranium shells, the ultimate responsibility for the resulting deaths, injuries or destruction lies with those who ordered the attack to take place.
65. Responsibility of commanders and other superiors. A military commander, or a person effectively acting as a military commander, is responsible for offences committed by forces under his effective command and control or his effective authority and control... A person responsible under this section for an offence is regarded as aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of the offence.
78. Crown Application. This Act binds the Crown and applies to persons in the public service of the Crown.
IMPLICATIONS
As the proposed invasion and occupation of Iraq violates the laws against war, it will render those involved criminally liable in both domestic and international law. In the event that you go ahead with the invasion and Iraqi casualties ensue, British residents involved in aiding, abetting, counseling or procuring the commission of offences against the Iraqi people are liable to be charged with ‘conduct ancillary to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes’ under Section 52 of the ICC Act. Although it is never possible to arrest and try everyone responsible for war crimes, it is quite possible that up to 1000 political, civil and military leaders, including every member of the Cabinet and many of our colleagues in Parliament will be prosecuted for the world’s most serious crimes.
RECOMMENDA TIONS
I advise that you abide by this country’s obligations and duties and confine international affairs to the legal and legitimate path outlined by the UN Charter. We must not allow the Bush Administration’s illegitimate interventions on the international stage to drag this country into an illegal war.
I suggest that you turn down George Bush’s invitation to join a coalition, informing him that as founding signatories to the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War and the UN Charter both our nations are constrained by international law to operate under the auspices of the Security Council and to settle the Saddam problem by legal and peaceful means. You might also remind him that under Article VI of the American Constitution international treaties are American law, and that if he invades Iraq he not only violates the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the UN Charter, the Nuremburg Judgement, the Nuremburg Principles and the Genocide Convention, but he violates the American Constitution as well as committing the world’s most serious crimes. If he still insists on attacking Iraq, remind him that if Iraqi nationals are killed it will constitute an act of ‘genocide’ which is a crime in American domestic law under the Proxmire Act 1988.
I suggest that it will help Britain’s international reputation, if at the same time that you refuse to support America’s illegal proposal, you publicly reaffirm our determination to support the UN, assist the Weapons Inspectorate’s efforts in finding and destroying Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, uphold international treaties and support the International Criminal Court. As a lawyer, it will be in your interest to be seen to be upholding the rule of law. Turning down George Bush’s illegal proposal provides excellent opportunities to reinforce our ethical foreign policy initiative and remind America and the world that warfare and military conflict have been outlawed for decades. Refusing George Bush at this stage may be difficult, but by repeating in public that we are committed to the maintenance of a fair, just and equitable world for future generations, you will appeal to the vast majority of world opinion and be seen as a statesman of integrity, probity and stature. By adopting this peacekeeping approach, your place in history will be assured as the leader who caused the world to eliminate war, rather than Britain’s first convicted war criminal.
Attorney General
I advise that you abide by this country’s obligations and duties and confine international affairs to the legal and legitimate path outlined by the UN Charter. We must not allow the Bush Administration’s illegitimate interventions on the international stage to drag this country into an illegal war.
I suggest that you turn down George Bush’s invitation to join a coalition, informing him that as founding signatories to the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War and the UN Charter both our nations are constrained by international law to operate under the auspices of the Security Council and to settle the Saddam problem by legal and peaceful means. You might also remind him that under Article VI of the American Constitution international treaties are American law, and that if he invades Iraq he not only violates the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the UN Charter, the Nuremburg Judgement, the Nuremburg Principles and the Genocide Convention, but he violates the American Constitution as well as committing the world’s most serious crimes. If he still insists on attacking Iraq, remind him that if Iraqi nationals are killed it will constitute an act of ‘genocide’ which is a crime in American domestic law under the Proxmire Act 1988.
I suggest that it will help Britain’s international reputation, if at the same time that you refuse to support America’s illegal proposal, you publicly reaffirm our determination to support the UN, assist the Weapons Inspectorate’s efforts in finding and destroying Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, uphold international treaties and support the International Criminal Court. As a lawyer, it will be in your interest to be seen to be upholding the rule of law. Turning down George Bush’s illegal proposal provides excellent opportunities to reinforce our ethical foreign policy initiative and remind America and the world that warfare and military conflict have been outlawed for decades. Refusing George Bush at this stage may be difficult, but by repeating in public that we are committed to the maintenance of a fair, just and equitable world for future generations, you will appeal to the vast majority of world opinion and be seen as a statesman of integrity, probity and stature. By adopting this peacekeeping approach, your place in history will be assured as the leader who caused the world to eliminate war, rather than Britain’s first convicted war criminal.
Attorney General
Bibliography
Blair’s Wars - John Kampfner - Free Press
Choose Life, A Dialogue – Arnold Toynbee, Daisaku Ikeda - OUP
Constitutional and Administrative Law - Stanley de Smith, Rodney Brazier - Penguin Criminal Law - Smith and Hogan - Butterworths
Democracy at Risk - Jeff Gates - Perseus Publishing
Documents on the Laws of War - Adam Roberts, Richard Guelff - OUP
For the Sake of Peace – Daisaku Ikeda – Middleway Press
From Hiroshima to The Hague - Keith Mothersson - International Peace Bureau
Just and Unjust Wars - Michael Walzer - Basic Books
Lawless World - Philippe Sands - Penguin / Allen Lane
Principles of Criminal Law - Andrew Ashworth - OUP
Rethinking War and Peace - Diana Francis - Pluto Press
Thatcher’s Torpedo - Tam Dalyell - Cecil Woolf Publishers
The Pax Legalis Papers - Robert Manson - Jon Carpenter Publishing
The New Rulers of the World - John Pilger - Verso
Unpeople - Mark Curtis - Britains Secret Human Rights Abuses - Vintage
War Crime or Just War, The Case Against Blair - Nicholas Wood, Anabella Pellens –
South Hill Press
War No More - Robert Hinde, Joseph Rotblat – Pluto Press Web of Deceit - Mark Curtis - Vintage
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my appreciation to the following people for their help, encouragement or inspiration in bringing this booklet to fruition: Joel Coverdale, Ben Coverdale, Peter Doraisamy, Ray Bradshaw, Michael and Amanda Culver, Brian Haw, Maria Gallastegui, Eric Levy, Barbara Tucker, Carolyn Emerson, Bill Beckley, Olwen Haslam, Romy Johnson, Anabella Pellens, Nicholas and Sarah Wood, Euan Donaldson, Bridget Reiss, Birgitta Torn, James Thring, Abdul Haq al Ani, Bryan Thwaites, Elfyn Llwyd, Adam Price, John McDonnell, Alan Simpson, Bob Marshall-Andrews, Tony Benn, Michael Mansfield, Jane Taylor, Lesley Docksey, Isobel McMillan, Michael Hardern, Anthea Illingworth, Sarah Pauffley, Sally Coverdale, Peggy Davis, John Davis, Harriet Comben, Elie Dervonte, Nike Williams, Margaret Bloomer, Unity Cantwell, Richard Finchell, John Pilger, Mark Curtis, Sarah Wilkinson, Pat Haward, Christine Titmus, Fred Starkey, Annie Machon, Belinda McKenzie, Ian Neal, Simon Moore, Rob Little, Andy Baker, Michael Kalmanovitz, Giorgio Riva, Ben Martin, Selma James, Nina Lopez and members of Payday and the Global Women’s Strike.
The Author
Chris Coverdale is a behavioural scientist, governance consultant, memetic engineer, war law lawyer and peace activist investigating corruption in business and government.
© Chris Coverdale, Wimbledon, October 2007
