Law officers send mixed messages over human rights

The solicitor general today refuted the idea that an international law could remedy human rights abuses, while the attorney general argued that UN Resolutions trump the European Convention on Human Rights.

Delivering a speech on business and human rights, Robert Buckland QC MP said: "Many see an internationally legally binding instrument as the right tool to address the gap on remedy. Indeed, many will wonder why the UK, given its other commitments in this area, did not support the proposal for an international treaty at the UN Human Rights Council in June.

"The answer is: that proposal was not sufficient."

Buckland said the UK, along with the EU and US, do not support a treaty that would seek redress for victims of human rights abuses by companies because at this stage, what has currently been proposed, would not adequately or quickly address the issues faced by victims.

"Negotiating a single treaty is going to be a long and difficult process - diverting attention and resources away from practical action to help victims," he said.

The attorney general, however, has argued that UN resolutions trump European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) when a country is expected to comply with both.

Jeremy Wright QC MP is appearing today in the case of Al-Dulimi v Switzerland, which concerns the UN Security Council's regime of sanctions following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. A UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) at the time directed member states to freeze and confiscate the assets of specific individuals and companies linked to Saddam Hussein's regime.

Switzerland subsequently froze the assets of the man responsible for managing the investments of the Iraqi secret services, a Mr Al-Dulimi, as well as his company. However, Al-Dulimi complained in the Swiss courts that the freezing of his assets had been undertaken without any safeguards in place.

The Swiss courts dismissed the claims and declined to review the freezing and confiscation of Al-Dulimi's assets on the grounds that their authorities had no option but to adhere to the UNSCR. Subsequent to the Swiss court's decision, Al-Dulimi took his case to the Strasbourg court, arguing the refusal to consider his case breached his right to a fair hearing under article 6 of the ECHR.

The Strasbourg Court held that, under article 6 ECHR, Al-Dulimi was entitled to have the measures taken against him reviewed by the Swiss courts due to a lack of 'effective judicial review' at the UN.

The case has been referred to the Grand Chamber for reconsideration with the UK supporting Switzerland. The attorney general will argue that the obligations under the UNSCR take precedence as it is for the Security Council to determine the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security and for member states to apply UN commitments over ECHR obligations.

Laura Clenshaw is managing editor of Solicitors Journal

laura.clenshaw@solicitorsjournal.co.uk