Source · Select Committees · International Development Committee
Recommendation 2
2
Accepted
Publicly condemn attitudes of 'trading off' IHL breaches to prevent damage to legal frameworks.
Conclusion
We agree with the view of the ICRC that IHL is clear and comprehensive. It represents both a body of law that is robust and universal in its coverage, and a spirit by which warring parties must place the protection of civilians at the heart of their operational planning. However, there are serious deficiencies in the enforcement mechanisms and the ability of the international community to hold states and non-state actors accountable for violations of that law and spirit. As noted above, there is also an apparent willingness from non-state armed groups and UN Member States to ‘trade off’ the IHL breaches of others to justify further military action. This presents a threat to their very existence. These attitudes need exposing and publicly condemning by world leaders to prevent established and tested legal frameworks from being irrevocably damaged. (Conclusion, Paragraph 9)
Government Response Summary
The government agrees on the importance of IHL's comprehensiveness and accountability, detailing its existing foreign policy of supporting international criminal justice, vigilant alarm-raising, and support for the International Criminal Court.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
9. We agree that IHL is comprehensive and that both compliance and accountability are critical. As noted above, the UK is clear that parties to armed conflict must respect IHL even if the other parties do not. 10. UK support for accountability and for international criminal justice remains a fundamental element of our foreign policy. We are vigilant in raising the alarm where we see signs that violations of IHL may occur – directly with the countries involved, with nearby nations, and through international organisations. 11. Violations of IHL highlight the need for mechanisms to ensure effective compliance and accountability. As regards accountability, our focus is on supporting existing mechanisms, including domestic, where governments are best placed to tackle impunity. 12. The UK strongly supports the International Criminal Court as the primary international court for investigating and prosecuting individuals charged with the most serious crimes of international concern. (Recommendation 1, paragraph 10) We recommend that the UK Government takes the lead in efforts to reach a consensus on the use of autonomous weapon systems and artificial intelligence on the battlefield and the creation of an international instrument on their use. Government Response: Agree 13. We agree with recommendation 1. The UK is committed to developing and using Artificial Intelligence (AI) in weapons systems safely, legally and ethically and oppose the creation and use of any AI-enabled military capabilities that would operate without context-appropriate human involvement. We have set out more detail on how we maintain this in our response1 to the report by the House of Lords AI in Weapon Systems Committee in February 2024. 14. The UK continues to support the current mandate of the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) “to formulate, by consensus, a set of elements of an instrument, without prejudging its nature, and other possible measures to address emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS)” and is demonstrating leadership through working proactively to fulfil that mandate, working with a wide range of different states. 15. The Government maintains that the CCW remains the appropriate forum to consider the issue of emerging technologies in the area of LAWS. It is inclusive, expert and consensus based which means that as a forum its conclusions will have the most meaningful impact. The International consensus (Conclusion 3, paragraph 13) There is encouraging collaboration by a select few UN Member States that are promoting adherence to IHL and, in particular, the protection of aid workers. Yet there is a lack of comprehensive leadership across all aspects of IHL by a single Member State and a willingness to expose and publicly condemn flagrant abuses of IHL. This is challenging when traditional allies or leading world powers may be involved, but inconsistent application of IHL will be to its long-term detriment if IHL-conscious nations don’t make the appropriate interventions. The UK is well positioned to lead this endeavour to uphold IHL and the particular obligations in relation to humanitarian access and the protection of aid workers. This is a significant opportunity for the UK in a 0.3% foreign aid budget world, given that sharing expertise costs very little. In fact, it is one of the few areas where aid budget cuts need not have an impact and the UK could maintain and enhance its position as a world leader.