|
Disarmament DocumentationBack to Disarmament Documentation '20th-Century Rules, 21st-Century Conflict', speech by UK Secretary of State for Defence John Reid, April 3, 2006'20th-Century Rules, 21st-Century Conflict', speech by UK Secretary of State for Defence John Reid, April 3, 2006. 20th-Century Rules, 21st-Century Conflict"In recent weeks I've been speaking about the changes we face in defence, above all the challenges posed by potential new threats we could not have envisaged just a few years ago. "In essence, I have been saying two things: "First, that the strategic landscape we see before us now, and the threats we face, are different - and, as I have indicated today, significantly more complex - to anything we have faced before; and, second, that these are exacerbated by greater uncertainties ahead, be they ecological, economic, political or social. "This affects us all, from the soldiers, sailors or airmen in the job we ask them to do, to the future of our grand alliances. "I have tried to make clear that, whilst we must retain and enhance what traditionally makes us strong, we must also face a new reality - that without change that strength cannot be taken for granted, and that the consequences of weakness could be bleak indeed. "I hope that the comments and observations that I have previously made have contributed to the contemporary discussion about defence in the UK, and security more generally. "RUSI is well-placed to host such discussion. For over a century the Society has been at the hub of these kinds of debates and I have no doubt it will be so for many years to come. "Today I would like to move on and widen that debate to address new elements - in particular to make some observations about the international legal framework in which we operate. I am not myself a lawyer but, as a practising politician, I understand how law continues to evolve in response to real changes in the world. "For centuries conflict between tribes, cities and states was completely unbridled and savage. Very gradually, mankind developed a range of conventions that they applied to constrain and moderate what is in essence a brutal activity. "Eventually, these agreements became rules, which became laws. Much has been achieved in current legal frameworks. But warfare continues to evolve, and, in its moral dimensions, we have now to cope with a deliberate regression towards barbaric terrorism by our opponents. "A few weeks ago I spoke to students at King's College here in London about the uneven nature of the modern battlefield, and the unconstrained enemy ranged against us. Against this background, I called for all of us to be swifter to support, and slower to condemn our armed forces. "In that address I made clear that I was not, in any way, suggesting that British forces should operate outside the law. "What I said was that the legal constraints upon us, when set against an enemy which adheres to none whatsoever, but is swift to insist that we do, made life very difficult for the forces of Democracy. "I also said that this was not a difficulty we rejected. On the
contrary, we embraced it. "These values are constant. They form the bedrock of British society. The laws which represent them, though, have to reflect the reality of today's circumstances. "Historically, of course, laws have always been adapted to better suit the times. When they have become out-dated, or less relevant, or less applicable to the realities of the day they have been modified or changed. This is true of all laws, domestic or international. "In their most obvious form these developments make instant sense to us. For example, cars remain potentially dangerous things, yet as technology changed it became clear that asking a man to walk ahead of a vehicle with a red flag was ridiculous, and impossible. "But, since some change is less perceptible, more incremental,
the balance between considerations such as obligation and
entitlement, and freedom and security needs to be continually
reviewed and, where necessary, re-forged. If we act differently
today from how we behaved yesterday, it is not necessarily wrong.
Indeed it may be wrong not to. We owe it to ourselves, to our
people, to our forces and to the cause of international order to
constantly reappraise and update the relationship between our
underlying values, the legal instruments which apply them to the
world of conflict, and the historical circumstances in which they
are to be applied, including the nature of that conflict. "That is why I pose three questions about the international legal framework. Put simply, in today's changed circumstances are we convinced that it adequately covers:
"I may not have the answers to, or the precise means of resolving these questions and problems, but, just as we continually reassess whether we have the right military structure to meet current and future threats, I am sure that we should do the same for the laws that seek to regulate conflicts. "Let's start from the new environment in which we operate. "Towards the end of the 20th century, apart from murderous but - in modern comparative terms - relatively constrained terrorism in Northern Ireland , this country and its allies faced threats which were essentially state centred, predictable and in many fields subject to well evolved international law . We successfully met those threats by participation in well-defined formal alliances, deploying static standby forces prepared for major conventional combat operations along the most exposed borders of our allies. International Terrorism "We now face non-state actors capable of operating on a global
scale, crossing international borders, exploiting the teachings of
a great, peaceful religion as justification for their murderous
intent. "We are also amidst accelerating scientific and technological
progress which has facilitated the proliferation of, and easier
access to, the means of wholesale human destruction - particularly
in the form of chemical, biological or radiological weaponry, and
an enemy unashamedly determined to obtain those technologies to
kill millions. I believe we need now to consider whether we - the international community in its widest sense - need to re-examine these conventions. If we do not, we risk continuing to fight a 21st Century conflict with 20th Century rules. "Here at home, we in the UK have recognised the need to update our approach. In the face of the new terrorist threat, we have made appropriate legal changes in our domestic legislation. For instance, we have changed our domestic legislation relating to maximum period of detention before charge. We may disagree about the length of time that we should hold people but there is a general consensus that there was good reason to extend that period. We have also introduced a new offence of "Glorifying Terrorism". "And we have adapted the structure and capabilities of our security and military organisations for conflict abroad. "We have moved from a reactive to a proactive approach and from
defensive garrison roles to an emphasis on multiple, sustained
expeditionary operations against asymmetrical opponents. "The conventions were supplemented, of course, by Additional Protocols, but even those - with one exception - were drafted almost 30 years ago. "Of course, just because a law is decades old it does not mean
that it is redundant. Article 3 of the Conventions, for instance,
sets fundamental standards of treatment in all non-international
armed conflicts, standards that are upheld by the laws of any
civilised state. "However, when we think of the massive changes which the military have undergone to deal with new threats in the last decade alone, we get some idea of the scale of that change where armed conflict is concerned. "In the light of those changes I believe we must ask serious
questions about whether or not further developments in
international law in this area are necessary. "Another specific area of international law we perhaps need to think more about is whether the concept of imminence - i.e. the circumstances when a state can act in self-defence without waiting for an attack - is sufficiently well developed to take account of the new threats faced "In 2004, my colleague the Attorney General explained the current position under international law when he said: "International Law permits the use of force in self-defence against an imminent attack but does not authorise the use of force to mount a pre-emptive strike against a threat which is more remote…military action must only be used as a last resort….the force must be proportionate." "Difficult as it is, I think all of us here - including representatives from academia, the legal profession, diplomacy and journalism need to consider these issues now rather than waiting for the next threat to come along, and I'll explain why. "Afghanistan is a good example. There were clear legal grounds for the international community - led by the US - taking action against Afghanistan after 9/11. Al Qaeda had proved both the intent and the capability to kill thousands of innocent men women and children. The threat of them doing so again was clearly imminent for all to see. "But what if another threat develops? Not Al Qaeda. Not Muslim extremism. Something none of us are thinking about at the moment. The proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction has coincided with the growth of those prepared to use them. We know that terrorist groups continue to try and acquire such weapons and that they have described their willingness to use them. We also know that they continue to seek opportunities to launch attacks on a similar or greater scale as 9/11. Hopefully, we would learn of any such threat before any atrocities had been committed. I believe we would have strong legal grounds to take action to protect ourselves against attack. I also suspect that others would disagree. A debate would centre around "imminence". The very significant consequences of action or inaction in these circumstances should give us all pause for thought. "Let me also make it clear that this is not simply a debate for Whitehall or Westminster; this is not just an argument for NATO leaders. We all need to think about this problem. After all this is just as relevant - perhaps even more relevant - in the streets of Cairo and Karachi as it is in the streets of Cambridge and Cologne. It is sometimes forgotten just how many people in Africa and Asia have been murdered by terrorist acts. We all have a stake in this debate. Internal intervention "Again, we can illustrate the relevance of the question by reference to our own domestic history. Most of us in this room can remember an ethos in our culture in this country whereby it was accepted that police would arrest a man for punching his neighbour, but would decline to get involved if he did the same to his wife. "Society and the law's approach to domestic violence changed, thankfully, and I am extremely proud that this government has done so much to reflect those changes with the new legislation and public campaigns. "The question is how far we need to go in considering similar developments in international law. Just as in the Balkans in the early 1990s, we can find ourselves operating in situations where the state is either unwilling or unable to protect its citizens from murderous attacks. The UN Security Council set up the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Hague to bring those responsible to justice. "ICTY was a response to a particular problem of lawlessness in a limited geographical region. There is also the International Tribunal established to deal with war crimes in Rwanda as well as the Special Criminal Court in Sierra Leone. All of these models have their advantages and disadvantages and perhaps we should be giving more thought to whether we can improve the international legal framework such that it delivers justice more effectively. However punishing people after the event is important but only part of the story. "That is why I very much welcome the work the UN has been doing with the Responsibility to Protect declaration signed last year. The question that people standing in a bus queue in my constituency ask when they see on their TV what is happening in Darfur, Rwanda, Congo or elsewhere is not "Why are we interested in intervening?". The question they ask is "Why aren't we doing more to help these people?" "As long ago as 1948 the Genocide Convention provided in its
first Article I that genocide, whether committed in time of peace
or in time of war, is a crime under international law which states
undertake to prevent and to punish. Why, nearly 60 years later, do
we find it so difficult to intervene? "There is a vitally important principle at stake - deliberately
killing innocent men, women and children is wrong and illegal and
there should be effective legal mechanisms in place to bring the
perpetrators to justice. "I want to stress that the UN, and adherence to international law, remain at the heart of British foreign and defence policy. It is as much to strengthen these institutions and to ensure their continued relevance that I think we need to have this debate. "The laws of the 20th Century placed constraints on us all which
enhanced peace and protected liberty - we must ask ourselves
whether, as the new century begins, they will do the same." Source: UK Ministry of Defence, http://www.mod.uk. © 2006 The Acronym Institute. |