International Humanitarian Law

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) provides the framework for the protection of civilians in terms of methods of attack or weapon systems used particularly in international armed conflict.

IHL, and specifically Geneva Convention provisions, prohibit indiscriminate attacks against civilians, the bombing of electricity supplies, and other attacks or weapon systems that have an indiscriminate effect on civilians. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court links IHL to the penal code and we are working with other lawyers and NGOs from around the world in making the UK Government's leaders accountable to the Hague for violations of IHL.

PIL have represented CND and other groups and individuals forming part of the peace movement in cases concerning nuclear weapons and cluster munitions in the UK. Our arguments have revolved around the breaches by the UK of the "intrangressible" rules of IHL, through the possession of Trident 2, a nuclear weapon system with 10 times the explosive power of Hiroshima. Trident 2 breaches the rule of discrimination since its effects are so catastrophic that it could not possibly distinguish between a military target and civilians.

PIL are instructed in a potential judicial review against Southampton City Council of its adoption of the Sotonsafe Plan, a safety plan designed to protect civilians in the event of a nuclear disaster from nuclear submarines berthed at Southampton Docks. We intend to argue that the practice of berthing nuclear submarines should be justified in accordance with the EURATOM Treaty.

PIL were instructed in a leading case concerning the manufacture of nuclear weapons at Aldermaston. In this application for judicial review our clients challenged the decision of the environmental regulator to authorise increased environmental emissions from Aldermaston. One of the grounds of challenge was that the regulator permitted an activity that was in breach of IHL when it was required to balance that as a detriment under the justification exercise required by the EURATOM Treaty.

The case was lost in the High Court on 29 March 2001 and we pursued an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Lord Justice Laws, in giving the leading judgment, held that the disposition of the armed forces was not justiciable, that is not for judge or jury, and reiterated the arguments in a 40 year-old House of Lords case, Chandler. Leave to appeal was refused.

The PIL team has also taken cases concerning the refuelling of nuclear submarines at Devonport, Plymouth and the use of a nuclear submarine berth at Southampton. We were involved in making a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of Trident Ploughshares. This complaint focused on the potential massive violation of human rights if the UK, as the possessor of nuclear weapons, was consequently the subject of a nuclear strike.

Contact us if you think we can help.