Military Conflicts: International Law

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and thank the Lord Speaker for pronouncing my name in the Northumberland way.

My Lords, I start by reflecting upon the sad news that the Lord Speaker has just imparted to the House. Lord Mackay was a hugely respected figure across all parties. He was a giant in the law. I am sure we all join in sending our condolences to his family. National security is the first duty of government, and we are committed to protecting Britain alongside upholding the international rule of law as part of a strong NATO alliance. I have met many NATO ministerial colleagues as part of my role, including the former US Attorney-General Pam Bondi, the acting US Attorney-General Todd Blanche, the Attorney-General of Canada Sean Fraser, the Minister of Justice in Spain Felix Bolaños and the Norwegian Deputy Foreign Minister Kravik. I will continue to meet NATO counterparts, if requested, to strengthen our alliances and build on our shared values that have kept this country safe for more than 70 years.

I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that reply. I have the greatest respect for his legal prowess. He has reached the pinnacle of his profession, and I admire him enormously. Incidentally, I do not have a problem with his past involvement in cases against the Government and veterans, because barristers have to adhere to the cab-rank rule. He did exactly that, and I respect him for it. However—this is relevant to my substantive question—I do have a problem with some emails he sent to instructing solicitors, including one in which he said that human rights lawyers deserve more respect in society than serving soldiers. Does he understand why our veterans, who deserve our support and gratitude, were so insulted? I hope he keeps his job in government. If he does, will he make every effort to support our veterans, whether they be from Iraq, Afghanistan or Northern Ireland? What will he be doing to support them?

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am not going to take up the time of your Lordships’ House trying to put in the correct context that which some newspapers put in the wrong context. There is a broader point that the noble Lord touched upon, which is the principle that underpins the independent Bar—of acting without fear or favour for your clients. The noble Lord is absolutely right. I did some cases against the British Armed Forces, but at the same time I did many for members of the British Armed Forces, including acting pro bono for members of the Armed Forces. What I can truly say in answer to the noble Lord’s question, and reflecting on two years as Attorney-General, is that one of the greatest privileges has been working day in, day out with our Armed Forces. The opportunity to see first-hand their extraordinary professionalism and immense bravery has been a true privilege.

Would not an unprovoked attack by the US on Greenland amount to the international crime of aggression, contrary to Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations? Will the Prime Minister remind the President of the United States at the NATO meeting in Ankara that he can never win by foul play?

The Prime Minister has already made plain his views about US rhetoric in respect of Greenland, and he has also made plain this Government’s commitment to uphold international law at every turn.

My Lords, we are in the process of vetting the House on the future of military capability enabled by artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons systems, but human agency will remain the paramount factor in ensuring that these systems conform to the legal and moral constraints of warfare. Those constraints, both international humanitarian law and the laws of armed conflict, are themselves diverging. The pressures and burdens on individuals in the Armed Forces—the agents of the state—will become ever greater and so, therefore, will the need to protect them. Do the Government fully recognise this, and what are they doing about it?

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. AI in the context of the use of armed force and protecting this country is an issue that we are taking enormously seriously. It presents huge opportunities for this nation but also threats. Dealing with many of those threats will require international co-operation. That is why this Government are so committed to working closely with allies to set out appropriate guidelines and, if necessary, conventions, to deal with the threats ahead.

My Lords, like noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, I want to take a moment to pay brief tribute to the late Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He was a great Conservative, a great lawyer, a great Lord Chancellor, and also a man of profound Christian faith, who lived out the words of scripture: “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God”. Does the Attorney-General agree that international law cannot remain static when the nature of warfare is changing so rapidly? The law on self-defence and, in particular, what constitutes an imminent threat, was developed in a very different and earlier age. In the age we live in, of nuclear weapons, cyber attacks, autonomous systems and long-range precision strikes, what progress is being made with our NATO allies towards a common understanding of how those legal principles are to be applied in modern military conflict?

I entirely agree with the noble Lord that international law has never stood still; it evolves to face the challenges of each era. We continue, both as lawyers and in government, working with our opposite numbers, to discuss the prescient issues of the day, including what amounts to an imminent threat. We continue to have those discussions at both a political and an official level, day in, day out.

How many NATO counterparts with whom the Minister has discussed this, particularly the Americans, have agreed with his summation of political problems?

I am so sorry—I might have missed the end of the noble Lord’s question, but if it is about the frequency with which we discuss with our NATO allies the important contemporary issues of the day as they present themselves on the battlefield, or potential battlefields, those are ongoing discussions with intensity and purpose. They are not, of course, limited simply to NATO. More generally, our discussions with allies across the globe focus on the issues of the day, working together for the common good.

My Lords, I thank the Attorney-General for his recent engagement with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and myself on universal jurisdiction and genocide determination. In the light of the current events referred to in this Question, but specifically in Sudan, where horrendous crimes have been committed, can the Attorney-General say more about how we will be able to hold to account those who have committed the most grievous crimes, particularly against women?

I first pay tribute to the noble Lord and his unflagging commitment to the protection of human rights across the globe. As I anticipate it is for all of us in this House, Sudan is an issue of grave concern. The thousands upon thousands of lives that have already been lost in the most horrific circumstances cast a stain upon us all as an international community, and the fear of what might happen in the coming weeks and months is a very real one. It underlines the importance of international law frameworks, not least the notion of accountability, because unless there is accountability, the real risk is that there is impunity, and we cannot allow that to happen.

My Lords, why does the Attorney-General wish to break the US-UK treaty on Diego Garcia, when the ICJ has no ability to order us around on Commonwealth and defence matters, and we need to keep that base?

I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we need to keep that base. That is why, coming into government, we built upon the 11 rounds of negotiations the previous Conservative Government had commenced, because we take the view that what is of most importance is securing that vital base for the defence and national security interests of this country. Like the last Government, we took the view that this was best secured through agreement. It is not simply out of adherence to what is an advisory, non-binding opinion of the International Court of Justice. That is simply one piece in a jigsaw, the larger picture of which is all about the national security interests of this country.