UK allowing US use of military bases could violate international law, rights groups warn
Rights groups are sounding the alarm over the legality of UK involvement in US military strikes on Iran, following the government's decision to allow American use of its military bases.
In a letter to the prime minister, attorney general and foreign secretary seen by Middle East Eye, Human Rights Watch UK director Yasmine Ahmed demanded "urgent clarification" on the steps taken by the government to ensure that US military strikes conducted from its bases are compliant with international humanitarian law.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer confirmed in early March that the UK had agreed to allow the US to use its military bases for what he said were defensive purposes.
On Friday, Downing Street announced that the agreement had been expanded to allow for the US to launch strikes from UK bases on Iranian sites targeting the Strait of Hormuz - also invoking "collective self-defence" of Gulf state allies as a legal basis for the decision.
Ahmed said that, while the government's legal justification for the move invokes self-defence, it fails to mention issues related to international humanitarian law.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
She emphasised that, despite this omission, both international humanitarian law (IHL) and international criminal law (ICL) "are applicable to the UK's decision to allow the US to use its military bases to strike targets in Iran".
The letter explained that, under Common Article 1 (CA1) of the Geneva Conventions, states are obligated to ensure respect for IHL, but are also bound to ensure others who are party to a conflict do the same.
Ahmed noted that, while the UK government disputed this second obligation in a recent judicial review of its decision to continue exporting F35 parts to Israel, it is "inconsistent with well documented practice".
She explained that the blanket approach "fails to take account of how obligation may arise in the context of joint military operations or where a state is providing support to another state in the context of military operations, where the issue of ability to influence is clear".
"Providing support, which would include the use of a military base, with the knowledge that such support will contribute to violations of IHL would violate CA1," Ahmed said.
She added that states were obliged to take proactive steps to stop rights violations by exerting influence on the party that is committing them.
"Importantly, this obligation is not limited to stopping ongoing violations; it also includes an obligation to prevent violations when there is a foreseeable risk that they will occur and to prevent further violations in case they have already occurred," Ahmed emphasised.
Serious questions unanswered
The letter outlined a number of instances which have raised questions around US compliance with IHL and its approach to civilian harm.
These include an airstrike on Shajareh Tayyebeh primary school in the southern Iranian city of Minab, at the start of the US-Israeli assault on 28 February. At least 175 people were killed in the attack, most of them children.
A preliminary investigation into the strike by the Pentagon found that the US military was responsible for the attack.
On 2 March, UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said that "longstanding operational arrangements for partners and allies" would be implemented if a US strike conducted from a UK base hit something other than a military target.
In her letter, Ahmed asked whether the government was relying on these "longstanding arrangements" to ensure compliance with international law.
"And if so, what steps have been taken to ensure they are adequate for the purpose of the UK complying with its international obligations given the above mentioned facts?
"In circumstances where the UK clearly has a degree of influence over the US in relation to the strikes that are conducted from its bases, and where there are very real reasons to be concerned about the extent to which the US has the institutional safeguards in place for civilian protection and a commitment to comply with IHL, the UK should be taking proactive steps, beyond limiting the permissible targets, to ensure that the US respects IHL when it is using its bases to strike Iran," Ahmed said.
Meanwhile, Amnesty International UK's Crisis Response Manager, Kristyan Benedict, warned that the government's decision to allow US use of British military bases "does not exist in a vacuum - it carries human rights responsibilities".
"Serious questions remain unanswered. How does the UK government know that US forces are not using British bases to strike schools, hospitals or other civilian infrastructure in Iran? What measures and agreements are in place to ensure the UK is not enabling violations of international humanitarian law by the US?"
Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.
