Law and Rights
Article 51 of the United Nations (UN) Charter requires that self-defensive actions are reported immediately to the UN. Thanks to Carl Gardner and the Head of Legal Blog for highlighting the UK's letter to the President of the Security Council - see Head of Legal 10th September 2015.
In his statement to Parliament, the Prime Minister said that the government acted in defence of the United Kingdom when the drone strike was ordered against Reyaad Khan in Syria - please also see post of 9th September. The U.N. Charter Article 51 requires that such self-defensive actions be reported immediately to the United Nations and here is a link to the UK's letter:
Letter dated 7 September 2015 from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the President of the Security Council
I don't know whether a delay of over 2 weeks constitutes an "immediate" report but we can be certain that this point will not affect the legality of the U.K.'s action.
The letter refers not only to defence of the U.K. but also to the defence of Iraq and Iraq was not referred to in the Prime Minister's statement. Politically this seems to be a considerable mistake since an impression is created that government thinks it necessary to bolster its case (that the action was lawful) by referring to Iraq. Perhaps an alternative way of looking at this is that the UK government is reminding the Security Council of the fact that UK Forces (and others) are already acting against Islamic State in Iraq.
Whatever the political situation, it is hard to see why it should alter the legal position. If the aerial attack was lawful in self-defence of the UK then it will remain lawful on that basis regardless of the position vis-a-vis Iraq. As argued in this previous post, the action appears to be supportable in international law though this will depend on ALL the facts and many (maybe most) of those are not in the public domain.
- Understanding Un Security Council Resolutions
United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) are most important at an international level and yet they can be difficult to interpret. They are not treaties. Understanding of the proceedings at the Council prior to the resolution is...
- Reported Killing Of Mohammed Emwazi (jihadi John)
The Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP) reported that a United States of America "drone" attack may well have killed the terrorist Mohammed Emwazi - the Islamic State "executioner" known as Jihadi John - Number 10 Prime Minister's Statement. ...
- View From The North ~ A Killing In Syria
A View from the North Updated 14th September ... It is common knowledge that the United Kingdom government (and its allies such as the USA) have extensive intelligence and surveillance capabilities including the ability to monitor the activities of individuals....
- Supreme Court Quashes Orders Against Taliban And Al Qaida
The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1267 on 15th October 1999. Subsequent resolutions have also been passed - e.g. UNSCR 1333 was passed in 2000 to freeze assets of Al Qaida. Resolution 1267 was aimed at ?the Afghan faction known as...
- So, Was The War Lawful?
The Head of Legal blog argues that the Iraq War of 2003 was lawful. I have put my own, admittedly non-expert, view on that excellent blog which is to the effect that the trail of UN Security Council Resolutions from Resolution 660 (2nd August 1990) to...
Law and Rights
Reyaad Khan: The U.K. government's letter to the United Nations
In his statement to Parliament, the Prime Minister said that the government acted in defence of the United Kingdom when the drone strike was ordered against Reyaad Khan in Syria - please also see post of 9th September. The U.N. Charter Article 51 requires that such self-defensive actions be reported immediately to the United Nations and here is a link to the UK's letter:
Letter dated 7 September 2015 from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the President of the Security Council
I don't know whether a delay of over 2 weeks constitutes an "immediate" report but we can be certain that this point will not affect the legality of the U.K.'s action.
The letter refers not only to defence of the U.K. but also to the defence of Iraq and Iraq was not referred to in the Prime Minister's statement. Politically this seems to be a considerable mistake since an impression is created that government thinks it necessary to bolster its case (that the action was lawful) by referring to Iraq. Perhaps an alternative way of looking at this is that the UK government is reminding the Security Council of the fact that UK Forces (and others) are already acting against Islamic State in Iraq.
Whatever the political situation, it is hard to see why it should alter the legal position. If the aerial attack was lawful in self-defence of the UK then it will remain lawful on that basis regardless of the position vis-a-vis Iraq. As argued in this previous post, the action appears to be supportable in international law though this will depend on ALL the facts and many (maybe most) of those are not in the public domain.
- Understanding Un Security Council Resolutions
United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) are most important at an international level and yet they can be difficult to interpret. They are not treaties. Understanding of the proceedings at the Council prior to the resolution is...
- Reported Killing Of Mohammed Emwazi (jihadi John)
The Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP) reported that a United States of America "drone" attack may well have killed the terrorist Mohammed Emwazi - the Islamic State "executioner" known as Jihadi John - Number 10 Prime Minister's Statement. ...
- View From The North ~ A Killing In Syria
A View from the North Updated 14th September ... It is common knowledge that the United Kingdom government (and its allies such as the USA) have extensive intelligence and surveillance capabilities including the ability to monitor the activities of individuals....
- Supreme Court Quashes Orders Against Taliban And Al Qaida
The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1267 on 15th October 1999. Subsequent resolutions have also been passed - e.g. UNSCR 1333 was passed in 2000 to freeze assets of Al Qaida. Resolution 1267 was aimed at ?the Afghan faction known as...
- So, Was The War Lawful?
The Head of Legal blog argues that the Iraq War of 2003 was lawful. I have put my own, admittedly non-expert, view on that excellent blog which is to the effect that the trail of UN Security Council Resolutions from Resolution 660 (2nd August 1990) to...