Iraq Issues Arrest Warrant for UK Troops

[English assassin]

According to your government, it does. No surprise there. I wonder, however, what the status of the occupation force's self-made rules is now that Iraq has formally reverted to sovereignty

Interesting though this point may be, at some point someone, and it might as well be me, is going to say, rules, shmules, we had the APCs and we used them. As I said in an earlier thread it must feel like this being American.

For what it is worth so far as I know the fact that soveriegnty has passed to a new body does not undo the acts of the formerly soveriegn power unless and until the new power says it does. Any other doctrine would be quite inconvenient, as it would mean at the moment of transfer the territory is wholly without law. Not a likely result. So unless and until the new Iraqi government validly issues a new law governing the status of UK forces in Iraq we seem to be free and clear.

[Adrian II]

For what it is worth so far as I know the fact that soveriegnty has passed to a new body does not undo the acts of the formerly soveriegn power unless and until the new power says it does. Any other doctrine would be quite inconvenient, as it would mean at the moment of transfer the territory is wholly without law. Not a likely result. So unless and until the new Iraqi government validly issues a new law governing the status of UK forces in Iraq we seem to be free and clear.

The rub in this whole matter seems to be that the new Iraqi government is merely provisional and will remain so until it has been granted its full responsiblity under the Constitution-in-spe. Thus it can not enter in any sort of international agreement on the status of foreign forces on its soil. I would think that upon the return of sovereignty, all laws of the former Iraqi government stand unless decreed otherwise by the new government. Obviously this is not what Her Majesty's Government wants to hear. And Her Majesty's Govermnent indeed possesses the APC's to enforce its view. Even though, as we saw in images of last Monday's riots, the APC's appear to have a capacity for spontaneous combustion that is quite on a par with the political situation in the British sector.

[King Ragnar]

Yep now its time to definatley pull out i dont want any more of our boys dying for some pointless reason.

[English assassin]

Even though, as we saw in images of last Monday's riots, the APC's appear to have a capacity for spontaneous combustion that is quite on a par with the political situation in the British sector.

True enough, I too would have cut loose with the Raden cannon and lets see who thinks its a smart idea to chuck a petrol bomb at an APC after that*, but its not like you to take a metaphorical shot at squaddies being very careful to avoid civilian casualties at some risk to themselves?

(*not really. I might have squashed a couple as I drove off though)

I don't really understand your analysis of the sovereignty point. Immediately after the defeta of the Iraqi regime, sovereignty was being exercised by the allied forces, in accordance with what I understand are well known laws of war. As sovereign authority the forces issued a law governing the status of their members. So far so good. Any law that Mr Hussein's regime may have had on the issue is necessarily impliedly repealed.

Soveriegnty has been transfered to "the Iraqis". Still, OK, that will not of itself negate the law. And, finally, the body able to exercise sovereignty on behalf of the iraqis is not yet fuilly constituted. So as I understand it no one has/is yet able to conclude a proper visiting forces agreement. Therefore the interim arrangement stands as the last valid act of a sovereign authority in iraq on the subject.

Whether any of this is a good idea is a different issue, but jurisprudentially it seems to hang together. Though someone seems to have nicked my public international law book and the fact I have only just noticed shows how often I have to look any of these things up...

[Adrian II]

(..) its not like you to take a metaphorical shot at squaddies being very careful to avoid civilian casualties at some risk to themselves?

Not really. What I mean to say is that methods and instruments of war are ill-suited to the present situation. The considerable military strength of those 8000 men (which I do not doubt for a moment) is of little use, and the militias are no doubt going to exploit this inherent weakness further.

I don't really understand your analysis of the sovereignty point. (..) Soveriegnty has been transfered to "the Iraqis". Still, OK, that will not of itself negate the law.

I think it does (or should do) because the occupation has formally come to an end, hence there is no reason to uphold occupation law. It appears that the occupation (and the laws promulgated thereby) has been endorsed by the Security Council several times. Those occupation laws cover the present period of transition (setting dates for the popular vote etcetera) but as far as I know they do not cover the present status of the international forces on Iraqi territory.

Therefore the interim arrangement stands as the last valid act of a sovereign authority in iraq on the subject.

There has been no formal Iraqi surrender, therefore there is no Iraqi agreement to any terms whatsoever. The occupation law was promulgated at a time when there were no Iraqi authorities; these are still in the process of being constituted as we write. Nor is there a status of forces agreement (SOF). There is only a remnant of the occupation law (Order 17) and that remnant is now challenged by the Iraqi authorities in Basra. Isn't it logical that occupation laws come to an end once an occupation ends?

Oh wait, I forgot Law is firmly anchored outside the realm of logic.

You may be fully correct, English Assassin. I will get back to you if I can find out more about this.