Description
In recent years, Australian and British armed forces have both faced serious allegations of unlawful killings committed during the war in Afghanistan. However, institutional responses to these allegations have notably diverged. In Australia, the allegations triggered a damning internal investigation by Major General Paul Brereton, and one criminal prosecution is already underway. In the UK, investigations have entered their 13th year with no end in sight and a public inquiry currently ongoing. This project explores the differences between Australian and British accountability processes following alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, and situates these differences within the wider public, political and historical frameworks in which they occurred. While discussions of accountability for alleged war crimes often focus on international institutions such as the International Criminal Court and ad hoc tribunals, domestic legal and investigative systems are often the first line of defence against impunity for international crimes. As such, the effectiveness of these systems is critical to the effectiveness of International Humanitarian Law globally.
This paper demonstrates that accountability processes in Australia and the UK reflect wider political understandings of criminality and justice in the military setting. It concludes that, if we are to make these practices more effective, we must look not only to the armed forces themselves, but also to the societies in which they operate.
