The Citizen and the Law of Armed Conflict

1-2 September, 2009

In this two day conference, the Institute for Law Accountability and Peace (INLAP) and World Court Project UK have joined to form a steering group in concerns with accountability and the law. The first day constituted of talks from a wide range of experts while the second day enabled participants to discuss techniques on how to empower citizens.

Day One

The conference began with a review of international and domestic Law, which was examined by Nick Grief (Professor of International Law) and Robbie Manson (Co-founder of INLAP). As concerned citizens, we have the right to know how our country is run and what decisions are being made. However there is confusion as to when a country must adhere to domestic or international law in regards to militarism and defence. For example, US forces based in the UK adhere to US law, even though their operations are conducted on British soil. Therefore when is it appropriate to apply international law, and is the government, parliament, ministerial or individuals held accountable when laws are broken? Robbie Manson answered ‘no’, especially if definitions across international law are not concrete, as is the case for the term “crime of aggression”. Without terminologies in international law fully defined in all countries, accountability is less likely to happen.

While it is challenging to apply law to armed conflict, citizens are experiencing difficulties in relating to the government. Ann Feltham (Campaigns against Arms Trade) highlighted the lack of transparency shown by the government. The government’s annual report in the UN and EU bears little information on research conducted and is extremely vague due to commercial confidentiality. Liberal Democrat MP, Norman Baker urged that citizens make use of the ‘Freedom of Information Act’ (2006) to our advantage. However, while the act has enabled organisations like CAAT to retrieve commercial information on the arms trade, how to publicly present this information poses another question.

Dr. Paul Dorfman (University of Warwick) questioned whether the use of nuclear arms is justified and if the same information is known to the government as it is to the public. At present, there is demand for a public inquiry to be made on the Iraq war, as the reason to attack was not only illegal but publically favoured against. Dr. Andrew Blick (Senior Research Fellow) stated that the British parliament is weak with its conduct with the government. The Prime Minister can still declare war without the consent of the parliament, which undermines the system completely. It is not enough for politicians and officials to listen to citizens when parliamentarians cannot enforce the law on its own government.

The decisions that the government make may be linked historically, ignoring domestic and international law altogether. Dr. Nick Ritchie (University of Bradford) revealed that the justification of nuclear arms may be a matter of national identity rather than for national security. In a political point of view, keeping nuclear arms means maintaining a role as the “pivotal power” of the world. There are political fears that the liberation of nuclear arms may damage special foreign relationships. Labour Party MP, Clare Short agreed that the renewal of the British nuclear system is just an excuse for power, thus encouraging citizens to raise the debate on what Britain’s role should be. If “our political system is broken” then it falls on citizens to urge ministers for legal change.

A key approach to engaging with the government is through opinion polls and campaigning, however each method has its strong and weak points. Milan Rai (Justice Not Vengeance) illustrated that the attack on Iraq still went ahead despite large public demonstrations against the war. Yet, London Mayor, Boris Johnson continued as “Mayors of Peace” after public outcry when he left the position. With accurate and regular information, an action or decision can proceed or be stopped. According to Jenny Jones (Green Group), working with a group/organisation is a useful lobbying tool. By preparing pre-written letters and targeting specific counsellors, a message is likely to be accepted. Furthermore, it is easier to target the media through an organisation as the message behind the campaign is supported by a larger audience.

To round off the first day, case studies on the Trident renewal, War on Terror, and successful interactions between citizens and the government were presented by Angie Zelter (Trident Ploughshares), Gareth Peirce (Solicitor), and Jackie Chase (Brighton activist).

DAY TWO

For citizens to make a real impact to transform the British political system, it is essential to make use of resources already available like the Freedom of Information Act, as well as approaching local media and engaging with MPs.

In Day Two of the conference, 4 workshops were conducted to empower participants in discussions on how to engage in dialogue, petitions, face-to-face meetings, holding events, writing to the press and using IT successfully. These networking approaches were presented by David Bohm (MEDACT), Jenny Maxwell (Chair of West Midland CND), Ashley Woods (Media Consultant), and George Farebrother (World Court Project).

A comprehensive guide to empowering citizens will be developed by the World Court Project, however a short guide to ‘Writing to MPs’ and ‘How to Network’ will be available in this blog shortly.