Source · Select Committees · International Development Committee
Recommendation 15
15
Acknowledged
UK lacks consistency condemning IHL breaches, especially when protecting allies.
Conclusion
We welcome the times that the Government has made a stand on the likely breaches of IHL that have reduced access of populations to aid and/or have failed to protect those delivering aid. We also welcome the more general calls for the protection of aid workers. However, the lack of consistency across conflict types and geographies, arguably depending on the participants is startling, greater care needs to be taken to ensure that the UK’s actions and rhetoric around suspected breaches of IHL cannot be construed as being anything other than even handed—protecting allies 50 at the expense of unconditional support for IHL is unacceptable. Such actions would set a poor example to other states and risk undermining the universality of law designed to protect us all. (Conclusion, Paragraph 38)
Government Response Summary
The government partially agrees, stating it consistently calls on all parties to comply with IHL without differentiation and engages with partners to address reported violations. It clarifies that it cannot provide a running commentary on possible breaches due to lack of detailed information.
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
Partially agree. The UK consistently calls on all parties to conflicts, including non-state armed groups, to comply with their obligations under IHL and observe robust standards. In so doing it does not differentiate between conflicts or between parties. The Government cannot provide a running commentary on possible breaches of IHL in situations of conflict. Determining whether violations of IHL have occurred in the conduct of hostilities, for example, depends upon detailed knowledge of the facts of the specific military operation, including the precise nature of the target, the methods used to attack, the attacking party’s knowledge at the time and the anticipated military advantage in launching that attack. This is information to which the FCDO does not readily have access. Harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure is a tragic aspect of armed conflict, but does not in itself mean that IHL has been violated or that war crimes have been committed, particularly in circumstances where parties to a conflict are embedded among the civilian population and in civilian infrastructure. This does not stop the UK highlighting the risk of atrocities occurring and flagging concerns about respect for IHL including responding to particular allegations. We engage closely with partners, publicly and privately, to call out reported violations and to press for compliance with IHL.