In a landmark ruling, a tribunal has found that the British government’s secrecy around how it tracks civilian deaths in military campaigns risks undermining public confidence in the process. The ruling comes in response to a freedom of information case brought by the conflict monitor Airwar, as part of an investigation into the UK’s record in its bombing campaign against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.
The tribunal highlighted that unlike its closest ally, the US, the UK has no published guidelines for how it reviews and assesses allegations that civilians have been killed or injured in an attack. The judge ruled that British voters have a legitimate interest in the “nature, comprehensiveness and robustness” of these procedures, stating that “the absence of any published procedure at all has the potential to undermine public confidence as to its integrity and comprehensiveness.”
While the judge found against Airwar on national security grounds, the ruling nonetheless represents a significant victory for transparency. Airwar’s director, Emily Tripp, described the verdict as “important official recognition of the damaging effect the UK’s lack of public civilian harm policies has – for the British public, for the military and for civilians.”
The US, which led the coalition of countries providing air support in the war on IS, has admitted killing more than 1,400 civilians with its strikes. In contrast, the UK has only acknowledged a single civilian death, in a strike that targeted three fighters in eastern Syria in 2018. However, this strike was not logged in the records of civilian casualties kept by the US-led coalition and did not appear in a UK list of attacks that killed militants.
The lack of public information about this process has increased public interest in information about the strikes Airwar was investigating, the judgment said. In the US, a dedicated “civilian harm assessment cell” makes the judgment on whether civilian casualties have occurred, while in the UK, politicians have the final say.
The tribunal’s ruling highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability around the UK military’s actions, particularly when it comes to the tragic and unavoidable consequences of armed conflict. As Tripp noted, the verdict is an important step in ensuring the British public can have confidence that civilian harm is taken seriously and properly addressed.
