{"id":104850,"date":"2026-09-18T05:00:38","date_gmt":"2026-09-18T09:00:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=104850"},"modified":"2026-09-17T18:11:38","modified_gmt":"2026-09-17T22:11:38","slug":"worrying-about-post-combat-lawfare-will-crush-initiative-and-morale","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/worrying-about-post-combat-lawfare-will-crush-initiative-and-morale\/","title":{"rendered":"Worrying about post-combat lawfare will crush initiative and morale"},"content":{"rendered":"

As mentioned in Dr. Robert Lyman’s account yesterday<\/a>, the British government wants to turn back the hands of time to change the rules of engagement under which British Army troops and police conducted themselves during “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland. It may be an exciting prospect for law firms, activists, and other anti-military groups, but it would set a terrible precedent for British use of military force from this moment onwards. At The Critic<\/em>, Alexander Gray<\/a> explains why this is a dangerous and stupid idea that should be dropped forever:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

“British Army working during the Field Training Exercise” by U.S. Army Europe<\/a> is marked with Public Domain Mark 1.0 <\/a>.<\/p><\/div>\n

The debate about the hounding of veterans through the courts has long been presented in terms of fairness. This is indeed one side of the story. No decent country should tolerate servicemen being dragged through repeated investigations decades after the events in question, often without new evidence and after previous inquiries have already reached their conclusions. <\/p>\n

But focusing only on veterans misses an even more urgent point: this has become a national security threat.<\/p>\n

Over the past two decades, the legal framework governing military operations has changed. Courts have increasingly applied standards developed for peacetime to scrutinise wartime situations of uncertainty and danger which often demand split-second judgement. Human rights law, designed principally to regulate relations between the state and individuals, has increasingly been applied to military operations, including to situations already governed by the Law of Armed Conflict. <\/p>\n

This is having consequences on the battlefield. Personnel who believe that a lawful decision taken in combat may be reconstructed years later in a civilian courtroom are now incentivised to be more cautious, more process-driven and less willing to exercise initiative. That hesitation can slow decisions in situations where delay may place lives and the success of an operation at risk. The prospect of repeated investigations and prolonged legal uncertainty is also damaging morale and contributing to experienced personnel leaving the service, depriving the Armed Forces of skills and judgement that are difficult to replace.<\/p>\n

This is why the Prosperity Institute has published the Military Operations Bill<\/a>, presented to Parliament this week by Sir David Davis MP. It reasserts the principle that combat operations should be judged primarily by the Law of Armed Conflict. Courts have an important role in punishing wrongdoing, but they should not become alternative command structures reviewing military judgement from the safety of hindsight.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As mentioned in Dr. Robert Lyman’s account yesterday, the British government wants to turn back the hands of time to change the rules of engagement under which British Army troops and police conducted themselves during “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland. It may be an exciting prospect for law firms, activists, and other anti-military groups, but […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[4,62,7,9,5,53],"tags":[31,586,143,529,736,257],"class_list":["post-104850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-britain","category-europe","category-history","category-law","category-military","category-politics","tag-army","tag-guerillawarfare","tag-labour","tag-lawyers","tag-northernireland","tag-terrorism"],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2hpV6-rh8","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104850","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=104850"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104850\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":104852,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104850\/revisions\/104852"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=104850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=104850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=104850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}