Interesting legal development that may affect UK warfighting in future

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jumpinjarhead, Jun 20, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. This from the Kings College Department of War Studies blog:

    Yet more ramifications of subjecting a nation's sovereignty to the will of a regional group of nations.
  2. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    Although I loathe and despise the political and legal institutions of the EU, I suspect that this has more to do with legal and judicial activism by British lawyers.
  3. I don't think this can ever work in practice. When have our forces ever been correctly kitted out and set up from day one of an Operation or conflict?

    It takes time to develop kit which mets new demands. Casualties which don't seriously impact unit effectiveness will always be more acceptable to get the job done than hanging back waiting however long for appropriate kit.

    What's done to mitigate the situation in the meantime is far more important and civvies will never understand the challenges.

    Until politicians stop being fools (never happen) we will end up in conflicts and ops without acceptable kit at the start due to spending cuts which have taken place in the years beforehand.

    I still think the politicians of the countries iivolved should duke it out on a personal level and leave us out of it.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. I defer to your great knowledge but even so the EU provides in effect an "end run" around UK sovereignty vis-a-vis enforcing and interpreting its own laws.
  5. Especially as more and more generations of politicians come into office without having served themselves or having to send their own sons and daughters of privilege off to war.
    • Like Like x 2
  6. I've yet to read of a any Military which was 100% ready kitted out when war came. Even the Wehrmacht was preparing for a war to start in 1945-46 timeframe
  7. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    The European Convention on Human Rights is separate to the EU and was an attempt by European nations to adopt something like the US Bill of Rights. It was incorporated into British law in 1999 by Tony Blair's government, as part of his ongoing policy of creating work for his wife and their pals in the legal profession, and has plagued us ever since.
    • Like Like x 7
  8. sirbhp

    sirbhp LE Book Reviewer

    dont see plane loads of troops comiong back from the sand pit do we? just middle classes chit chatter.

  9. Seconded on the ECHR being nothing to do with the EU. Of course trying to explain to the average broken brained UKIP supporter that the Council of Europe and the European Union are very different things is not particularly easy...

    Given that the families have only been granted permission to bring a case against the MoD, and that no ruling is likely for a long time yet, I'm not sure just how much we need to worry. This strikes me rather more as a good example of the pitfalls of politicising the judiciary through the appointment process. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the majority of the appointees to our new Supreme Court made under the last government. And don't they just make a lovely habit of ruling against the current one...
  10. There is also the axiom that a nation going to war is usually better prepared (strategically, operationally, tactically and logistically) to fight the last one.

    Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
  11. It is permission to start the legal process. The judges were clear on it not being a definitive win for the families. Also there are some interesting clauses such as protection for government decisions on going to war or commands done during actions. Listening to the families on the radio it was if they had won the pools and the governments heads on poles. What now, past concientious objectors claiming they were at risk and needing paying off?
    • Like Like x 1
  12. I don't know...Germany was quite clearly prepared in 1939 to fight any war except the last one ;-)
  13. So it has a basis in ECHR, ergo it must be wrong? The nature of Justice is, it just is - courts only seek the truth, they can't manufacture it.

    Could the ruling just mean the government has to share the responsibility & consequences when they decide to send soldiers into a conflict zone where their equipment proves not to be up to the job?

    Usually, it's about balancing one group of people's human rights against another's. A government is still entitled to ask those, whose job it is, to risk their lives to protect the lives of the majority (even if it is questionable invading Iraq was ever likely to be justifiable in those terms). All this means is a government that does so ought to make a reasonable effort to return the favour, or take responsibility when they fail to do so.

    The soldiers lost their lives, their relatives lost their loved ones, and their future earning potential. It's not fair that they alone should bear the cost for the mistake of putting them in inadequate vehicles. If it was unforeseeable and unavoidable it still wasn't the dead soldiers' fault, not that it has anything to do with blame. Our government sent them on our behalf, that makes it our, shared, responsibility.
    • Like Like x 3
  14. It is permission to sue, not a win. It's basically saying that (like everyone else) people can have recourse to the Courts-That doesn't mean that they won't get slung out on technicalities, settle out of court, or simply lose the case altogether.

    Sometimes, going to court is the worst option. The Lawrence case nearly foundered on an unwise private prosecution. If military families take a badly prepared case to Court, and lose it, then its lights out.
    • Like Like x 2
  15. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    Despite CPUNK and I agreeing on this in the past it was pointed out to me that Winston Churchill was the first advocate of a Human Rights Bill in Europe to be law in the UK!
    Shocked? I know I was!