Legal protections for armed forces personnel and veterans serving in operations outside the United Kingdom: response to public consultation questionnaire

The UK Ministry of Defence announced a public consultation in July 2019.* Its first proposal was a statutory 'presumption against prosecution of current or former Armed Forces personnel for alleged offences committed in the course of duty outside the UK more than ten years ago' where previous investigations had not resulted in prosecution. The Ministry of Defence intended to 'raise the threshold to be applied by prosecutors when considering whether a prosecution is genuinely in the public interest in such cases.' Investigations might be re-opened, on these proposals, only in exceptional circumstances, such as the emergence of new evidence. In response, we argue that these proposals will not remove the uncertainty ex-service personnel face regarding investigations and potential prosecutions for alleged historical crimes during extra-territorial military operations. The proposed measures, analogous as they are to time bars, amnesties and other impediments which limit criminal proceedings for historical crimes, would be incompatible with the UK's obligations under international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law. The proposals cannot remove the possibility that service personnel will be tried before the International Criminal Court or in other jurisdictions. The proposed measures are also unduly restrictive of the circumstances in which investigations can be re-opened by the State; and the UK’s track record in investigating alleged wrongdoing during extra-territorial military operations is poor. The combination of these two factors is a serious cause for concern and may create perverse incentives, where poor investigations are conducted in the future, followed by reliance on the presumptions proposed.</p

Islamophobia or an important weapon? An analysis of the US financial war on terrorism

This article considers the impact of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) on the legislative and policy response by the United States towards terrorist financing. This article is divided into three parts. Part 1 considers the alleged association between Islamic banking systems and terrorist finance. The second part of the article critically considers the ability of the US authorities to freeze the assets of organisations who are suspected of financing terrorism by virtue of Presidential Executive Order 13 224. The final part of the article considers the reporting requirements imposed by the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act 2001). The third part also highlights some provisions and practices that raise the spectre of racial profiling in the United States, and critiques the fairness and success of such measures imposed on particular group of persons. The objective is not to provide a comprehensive analysis of the laws and policies, but to emphasise areas that have not yet been subject to sufficient scrutiny from the perspective of success and equality of the application of the law