Articles

Peacerights submission to the Ministry of Justice Consultation on War Powers and Treaties: Limiting Executive Powers.

This study aims to provide an overview of the nature and the current condition of the ‘right to protest’ as it might be said to exist under UK law as well as consider possible strategies for developing this right. Two key enquiries provide the focus for the Study. First, to what degree can an individual be said under UK law to have a human ‘right’ on a normative level to protest on an issue? Second, where, how and why are practices adopted by Police forces in the UK affecting the rights of individuals to protest?

NIS is bringing a legal challenge against the government's plan to renew the Trident nuclear weapons system. Grounds for the claim are that the government failed to carry out a promised Consultation and that building a new nuclear system is contrary to international law and the Non- Proliferation Treaty. An Application for Judical Review with the High Court was lodged on Friday 30th March 2006. The application may be granted on the submitted papers or an Application Hearing may be called.

Peacerights and the Nuclear Information Service are calling for governmental accountability on questions of illegality and due process regarding the replacement of Trident proposed in the Government’s White Paper, ‘The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent’, published on 4 December 2006.

Peacerights Legal Opinion on the Proposed Replacement of the Trident Nuclear Weapons System finds that the government has failed to carry out a promised consultation and is wrong in law in relation to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Jack Straw states "only a simpleton could think replacing Trident would breach the nuclear non-proliferation treaty" Guardian, Friday 24th. We would remind Mr Straw of the United Kingdom's obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which states: "Each of the parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective control."

I'm going to speak this morning as an UK lawyer with practical experience of trying to litigate issues arising from the UK’s possession of the nuclear weapon system. I’ll be speaking more with my litigation hat on as Public Interest Lawyers, whereas this afternoon I’ll be speaking more with my Peacerights hat on when I’m talking about people’s tribunals.

In this paper, first presented at the World Tribunal on Iraq (23-27 June 2005), Phil Shiner addresses three issues:

1. Whether the Iraq war was a “crime of aggression” (which is the “worst of crimes”);
2. Whether the way in which the war was conducted involved the commission of “war crimes” and;
3. Whether the subsequent occupation of Iraq involved, and continues to involve, the commission of “war crimes”, “crimes against humanity” and other illegal acts.

We say that British troops acted, and were ordered to act, beyond the bounds of military necessity. British soldiers acted unlawfully by detaining and mistreating Iraqi civilians, and by targeting cluster munitions on urban areas.

Peacerights alerted the public and the government in October 2002 that a war against Iraq would be illegal under international law. The Legal Inquiry into War on Iraq organised by Peacerights took place on 8th October 2002 at Gray's Inn London.