Accountability and Oversight of UK Special Forces
Report Summary
UK Practice versus Allies. Allied states such as Australia and the US employ a range of external accountability and oversight mechanisms employed for their Special Forces, including both proactive and reactive measures. Australia, after facing similar critiques about its opaque policies and serious allegations of crimes committed in Afghanistan, launched an in-depth inquiry resulting in the publication of the Brereton Report in 2020. This resulted in a transparent and public acknowledgment of harm done and substantive steps taken to prevent such harm from occurring in the future. The US has implemented an approach which combines proactive and reactive measures. The US Senate and House Committees on Armed Services consistently implement external oversight and accountability measures. A third body, the independent US Government Accountability Office, investigates and evaluates the Government activities and Special Forces Operations.
Next Steps and Recommendations. The report recommends implementing both reactive and proactive accountability measures to enhance the oversight and accountability of Special Forces. Immediate steps decisionmakers can take to implement these recommendations are to:
Establish a robust reporting mechanism which allows members of the special forces to confidentially report suspected wrongdoing without fear of reprisal, to foster a culture of accountability and transparency within the UKSF.
Establish an external auditor or independent agency which ensures special forces operations are carried out in accordance with domestic and international laws and conducts investigations into activities.
Establish a dedicated Parliamentary committee which will scrutinise operations, budgets, policies and the administration of the special forces. The committee would be able to conduct hearings and summon special forces decision-makers to testify and give evidence.
Security clearance for some MPs would allow them access to classified information to bridge the gap between transparency and the need to keep information classified. As in the US system, this ensures a bipartisan approach to the oversight of classified matters but also preserves operational confidentiality and security.
Training and development to be provided to auditors, members of the dedicated parliamentary committee, and MPs with security clearances to ensure they are fully briefed on operational protocols, international humanitarian laws and the ethical implications of special forces operations.
Considerations regarding the ongoing Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan. The Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan underscores once more the lack of transparency and accountability that surrounds UK Special Forces. The Inquiry was established to investigate serious allegations against the UKSF relating to operations in Afghanistan, including that unlawful killings were carried out during those operations, these killings were systematically covered up and the investigations carried out by the Royal Military Police were inadequate. The MoD’s strict adherence to its blanket ‘no-comment’ policy continues to hinder the pursuit of justice and accountability. In this relation, the Essex Human Rights Centre Clinic report highlights the need for a fully independent and external mechanism that can conduct investigations into such allegations and provide adequate oversight and accountability.
Read the Full Report below.
Collaboration.
This research project was undertaken by the University of Essex Human Rights Centre (HRC) Clinic in collaboration with the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Modern Conflict. The research team comprised four postgraduate law student researchers from the HRC Clinic, Hamza Bozkurt, Vanessa Topp, Jack Millar and Greta Ciucci. The postgraduate researchers were supervised by Dr Erin Pobjie (Principal Investigator and Deputy Director of the HRC Clinic) and supported by Dr Kaleigh Heard (Director of the APPG on Modern Conflict and Deputy Director of the Human Rights programme at UCL), acting as focal point for the partnership with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Conflict.
Since 2008-09, Essex Human Rights Centre Clinic has collaborated with partners from all over the world, including UN agencies, the World Health Organization, UN High Commissioner for Refugees or Amnesty International. Every year, 25-30 postgraduate students carry out research with and for five to seven partner organisations over eight months, under the supervision of academic experts in the field. In addition, postgraduate students are trained on critically important transferable skills for human rights practitioners, such as impact assessment, dealing with journalists, strategic communications, power dynamics within and between NGOs, strategic litigation and interviewing skills. The Human Rights Centre Clinic actively looks for project ideas that can be impactful and contribute to change policy and improve people’s lives. In that spirit, Essex Human Rights Centre Clinic partnered with the APPG on Modern Conflict over two consecutive years, in 2021-22 and 2022-23.
Media Enquiries.
For media enquiries regarding this report, please contact the APPG Secretariat at appgmodernconflict@gmail.com.
Background and Rationale. The United Kingdom holds a ‘no comment’ policy in relation to its Special Forces, meaning no external investigations can be made into their actions, nor can tribunals adjudicate on potential violations of human rights or humanitarian laws committed by UK Special Forces. In addition to this, a lack of transparency over internal oversight and accountability mechanisms, including investigations conducted by the Royal Military Police, raises concerns over their ability to operate independently and effectively. The UK’s current lack of external oversight and accountability framework for its Special Forces is singular among allies. In light of both shifts among allies towards strengthening their own external oversight and accountability mechanisms, as well as the emergence of credible allegations of violations of international law committed by UK Special Forces, the continued reliance on the blanket ‘no comment’ policy has led to significant criticism.
The principal objectives of this report are to (i) highlight concerns associated with the continued use of the ‘no comment’ policy held by the UK in relation to its Special Forces; and (ii) provide a series of evidence informed policy recommendations with a view towards strengthening the existing framework into one that promotes better oversight and accountability.
Findings. The report argues that the UK’s longstanding and current blanket ‘no comment’ policy and lack of external oversight and accountability framework for Special Forces activities risks being out of line with its obligations under international and domestic law. While a common justification for the continuation of this approach is the important need for tactical secrecy regarding Special Forces, external oversight models implemented by the UK intelligence community through the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) and by allied partner States such as the US and Australia demonstrate that such models can be developed without compromising the need for secrecy. This report thus provides a series of policy recommendations that aim to support and complement existing internal oversight and accountability mechanisms through progressive implementation of both proactive and reactive measures.