War crimes allegations have dogged the UK military for decades. Yet there is no settled process to deal with them. Different legal responses deployed have all suffered from complaints of unfairness. This paper proposes foundations for a more satisfactory approach based on an existing three-part consensus. First, that norms governing individual and systemic conduct in military conflict are relatively undisputed; secondly, that the state has a non-negotiable investigatory duty should a suspected breach occur; and thirdly, that any investigation should take into account the context within which it is conducted. The paper then advances three propositions: (1) first order principles of practicability, expertise, and investigator independence should provide the non-negotiable foundations of any response; (2) second order or subsidiary principles including promptness, adequacy, reasonable transparency, and respect for basic standards of natural justice should apply when practicable; and (3) a standing institution designed to comply with the first and second order principles would provide a fairer process for all participants (accused, victim and the wider national and international communities) whilst also fulfilling coherence and legal certainty requirements. The paper concludes that current structures cannot fulfil these demands and it explores the basis for a better alternative
