A recent tribunal ruling has delivered a stark warning that the British government's secrecy surrounding how it tracks civilian deaths in military campaigns risks eroding public confidence in the process.
Landmark Ruling Follows Airwars Investigation
The judgement was made in response to a Freedom of Information case brought by the conflict monitoring group Airwars. The organisation was investigating the UK's record during the bombing campaign against Islamic State (IS) in Syria and Iraq. Unlike its closest ally, the United States, the UK has no published guidelines for reviewing and assessing allegations of civilian harm from its military actions.
The US, which led the international coalition against IS, has publicly admitted to killing more than 1,400 civilians with its airstrikes. In contrast, the UK government has acknowledged only a single civilian death from its operations. This occurred in a strike in eastern Syria in early 2018 that targeted three fighters.
However, this incident was not logged in the US-led coalition's official civilian casualty records and did not appear on a UK list of attacks that killed militants. Furthermore, Syrian human rights groups had no record of a civilian being killed in that area on that specific day.
'Absence of Published Procedure' Undermines Trust
While the judge ultimately ruled against Airwars' request for more information on this specific strike, citing national security considerations presented in a closed court, the ruling contained significant criticism of the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) approach.
The judge found that British voters have a legitimate interest in understanding the "nature, comprehensiveness and robustness" of procedures used to assess civilian harm. "The absence of any published procedure at all has the potential to undermine public confidence as to its integrity and comprehensiveness," the ruling stated.
It added that while there was no reason to doubt the good faith of officials, "high-level assurances do not provide the same confidence as a published procedure that can be scrutinised." The lack of public information was found to have increased public interest in the details of the strike Airwars was probing.
Contrast with US System and Calls for Transparency
The tribunal heard that in the UK, politicians have the final say on whether to accept an assessment that British forces killed civilians. This differs markedly from the US system, where a dedicated "civilian harm assessment cell" makes that judgement independently.
Airwars hailed the tribunal's findings as a landmark validation of the need for greater transparency. "The judge has ruled that the British public have a right to know when civilians are killed in our names," said Airwars director Emily Tripp.
She emphasised that while the specific documents were not released, the verdict represents "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 case underscores ongoing calls for the UK to adopt clearer, publicly available protocols for reporting and investigating non-combatant deaths in conflict zones.
