R (Gentle) v Foreign Secretary [2008] UKHL 20, [2008] 1 AC 1346
Court: House of Lords
Facts: The case involved the mothers of two British servicemen who were killed during military service in Iraq. They challenged the Foreign Secretary's decision not to include an examination of whether the 2003 invasion of Iraq complied with international law in the inquests into their deaths. They sought judicial review of the decision, arguing that Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to life, imposed an obligation on the government to ensure that its actions were lawful under international law.
Issue: Whether Article 2 ECHR required the government to conduct an independent inquiry into the legality of the Iraq invasion and whether such a question was justiciable.
Held: The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, ruling that the question of the legality of the Iraq invasion was non-justiciable.
Non-Justiciability: The House of Lords held that questions regarding the legality of military actions and international relations fell outside the jurisdiction of domestic courts. Such issues were considered inherently political and not suitable for judicial review.
Article 2 ECHR: While Article 2 ECHR, which protects the right to life, was incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, the House of Lords found that this did not extend to making every aspect of international law justiciable in domestic courts. The duty to ensure that military operations comply with international law was not deemed to be a matter for judicial scrutiny under the Human Rights Act.
Preservation of Executive Discretion: The court emphasized that certain decisions, particularly those involving international relations and military strategy, were within the purview of the executive branch and not subject to judicial review. This preserved the executive’s discretion in handling such matters.
Key Judicial Statement: The House of Lords acknowledged the importance of human rights but maintained that some issues, especially those involving international law and military operations, are non-justiciable. The judgment reinforced the principle that courts should not interfere with matters of political and diplomatic discretion.
💡Leveluplaw: This case highlights the limitations of judicial review in matters involving international law and executive decisions, particularly in the context of military actions. It underscores the principle that while human rights are crucial, not all issues related to international law and executive discretion are within the judicial domain. The decision reaffirms the separation of powers, with certain areas reserved for the executive branch and not subject to judicial determination.