FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The UK High Court is Wrong

by

The decision by the UK High Court to block a bid by a former chief of staff of the Iraqi army to bring a private prosecution against Tony Blair for his responsibility over the Iraq War is misguided. It means, essentially, that one of the architects of a war that almost destroyed a country will continue to enjoy immunity for this dreadful act.

General Abdul Wahed Shannan Al Rabbat accuses Mr. Blair of having committed a “crime of aggression” by orchestrating with President George W. Bush the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein. As is widely known, that invasion left hundreds of thousands of civilian victims, many of them children, destroyed the country’s infrastructure and public health system, and dangerously polluted the country’s environment.

The Iraqi General’s lawyers had requested permission to seek judicial review from the Supreme Court. They want that highest court to overturn a 2006 ruling by the House of Lords that established that there is no such crime as the crime of aggression under the law of England and Wales. The general’s lawyers wanted to prosecute also two key ministers at the time – Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General.

Jeremy Wright QC, the current Attorney General, and his legal tem urged Lord Thomas and Mr. Justice Ouseley to stop the Iraqi general’s challenge, indicating that his case was unarguable because the crime of aggression is not recognized in English law. Although the two judges admitted that the crime of aggression had been recently incorporated into international law, they indicated that it did not apply retroactively.

Michael Mansfield QC, who represented General Al Rabbat, stated that the conclusions of the inquiry conducted by Sir John Chilcot in July 2016 justified the prosecution of Mr. Blair. That inquiry concluded that Saddam Hussein did not pose an urgent threat to the interests of the UK, that the peaceful alternatives to war had not been exhausted and therefore the war was not necessary.

In addition, Mr. Mansfield argued that the international crime of “war of aggression” had already been accepted by then UK Attorney General Sir Hartley Shawcross QC during the Nuremberg trials in the 1940s. During the trials, Britain was one of the parties that prosecuted the German criminals for launching precisely an “aggressive war”. As the British politician George Galloway stated in this regard, “From that moment onwards the de jure inadmissibility of such wars was established axiomatically in the British legal system.”

After World War II, the prohibition on the use of force by states was established in article 2 (4) of the Charter of the United Nations, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Aggression was first recognized as an international crime resulting in individual criminal liability under international law in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (IMT).

Article 6 (a) gave the IMT jurisdiction over crimes of peace, “namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or preparation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.” The same words are present in article 5 (a) of The International Military Tribunal for the Far East Charter (IMTFE Charter) also known as the Tokyo Charter.

These are strong precedents for Mr. Mansfield’s assertion that the offence of waging an aggressive war had effectively been assimilated into English law. Mr. Mansfield’s position led Thomas and Ouseley to concede, “We see the force of Mr. Mansfield’s contention that if there s a crime of aggression under international law, there should be a means of prosecuting it as otherwise the rule of law is undermined.”

They also indicate the “significant practical difficulties” of carrying out the prosecution and conclude that, within the UK, the clear principle is that “it is for parliament and parliament alone” to decide whether there should be a crime of aggression in domestic law.

It is clear that grave violation of international law and humanitarian principles have been committed by waging war against Iraq. And it is also clear that the UK High Court’s decision not to allow the demand to proceed is wrong. To leave those responsible for a devastating war unpunished is a travesty of the law and, in itself, a crime against the citizens of a country that has suffered so much.

More articles by:

Dr. Cesar Chelala is a co-winner of the 1979 Overseas Press Club of America award for the article “Missing or Disappeared in Argentina: The Desperate Search for Thousands of Abducted Victims.”

CounterPunch Magazine


bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
August 18, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Why Trump Could Be Gone Before 2020
John Steppling
America Asleep
Jeffrey St. Clair
To See or to Nazi: Trump’s Moral Blindspot is America’s
Vincent Emanuele
The Fetishization of Violence: Reflections on Charlottesville, WWII and Activism
Peter A. Coclanis
Why Trump Isn’t a Populist
Rob Urie
Imperial Death Spiral
Sam Husseini
How “Both Sides” Forge U.S. Supremacy: the Nationalistic Hypocrisies of “Violence” and “Free Speech”
David Rosen
Permanent War, Permanent Failure
Patrick Cockburn
Endtimes in Mosul
Dave Lindorff
Discovering Racism and Then Discovering It Anew
Richard Hardigan
Israel Continues Its Attack on Palestinian Freedom of Expression
Alexander Cockburn
Two Sides to Every Issue: the Tedium Twins Debate the Crucifixion, Slavery and Cannibalism
Pete Dolack
Life Under Capitalism: Early Deaths a ‘Silver Lining’ for Corporations
John Laforge
Peace Camp and War Games at Harvest Time
Robert Fantina
Trump, Congress and Integrity
Alfredo Lopez
Justice Department’s Dreamhost Subpoena Ramps Up the Police State
CJ Hopkins
A De-Putin-Nazification of America Update
Steve Brown
Giving Trump Credit When He’s Right
Peter Certo
White Supremacy Carries More Than a Tiki Torch
David Swanson
Creative Anti-Nazism
Jill Richardson
It’s Not About ‘White Culture’
Joseph Natoli
Easy Access to the Abyss
Mark Weisbrot
Strangling Puerto Rico in Order to Save It
Robert Koehler
Why Does North Korea Hate Us?
Nyla Ali Khan
The Woman Question in the Subcontinent
Alvaro Huerta
A Chicana/o Manifesto on Community Organizing: Reflections of a Scholar-Activist
Binoy Kampmark
Bullying Venezuela: Trump’s Unvarnished Threat
Patrick Bond
Falling BRICS Endanger Their Citizens’ Health, Starting With South Africa’s Jacob Zuma
Jamarl L. Thomas
Free Speech is Free Speech, Precisely for the Speech You Don’t Like
Kary Love
The Fourth Branch
Graham Peebles
Climate Change Demands an End to Excess and Greed
Louisa Willcox
Ted and Joan Major: Last of a Generation of Conservation Giants in Jackson Hole
Dylan Moore
Trump’s Immigration Plan Will Harm Americans and the Economy
Olivia Alperstein
Racists Look Emboldened. They’re Actually Terrified.
José-Antonio Orosco
What Did Dr. King Mean by Love?
Rob Okun
The Poison of White Supremacist Masculinity
Thomas Knapp
Charlottesville Haters: Test Case for the Internet as Public Square
Cesar Chelala
What Trump Can Learn From Ants
Ryan Summers
Breitbart, the Alt-Right and Charlottesville
Louis Proyect
Digital Dystopias
Charles R. Larson
Review: Lawrence P. Jackson’s “Chester B. Himes”
David Yearsley
“Oklahoma!”: As American as Apple Pie and Broken Treaties
August 17, 2017
Ajamu Baraka
The Story of Charlottesville Was Written in Blood in the Ukraine
Tim Messer Messer-Kruse
Right But Wrong: Trump’s Defense of Confederate Symbols and Its Threat to Color-Blind Liberalism
George Barbarie
Barbarian Left
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail