## Facts

- Hilal Abdul‑Razzaz Ali Al‑Jedda, a dual British–Iraqi national, travelled from the United Kingdom to Iraq in 2004.
- In October 2004, British forces in Iraq arrested and placed him in long-term internment at a British-run detention facility in Basra.
- He was not charged with a criminal offense, and no criminal trial was contemplated.
- The detention was justified as necessary for “imperative reasons of security,” based on intelligence allegations that he was involved in terrorist-related activity; he denied the allegations.
- The United Kingdom maintained the detention occurred within the Multinational Force (MNF) internment system, said to be authorized by UN Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 1546 (2004).
- Lower courts rejected his challenges, holding that the UN Security Council authorization displaced any inconsistent right to liberty under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as applied through domestic law.
- Before the final appeal, the government also argued that the detention should be attributed to the United Nations rather than to the United Kingdom.

## Issues

1. Whether the internment by British forces in Iraq was attributable to the United Nations or to the United Kingdom for purposes of responsibility.
2. Whether the detainee was within the United Kingdom’s jurisdiction for purposes of ECHR obligations while held abroad by British forces.
3. Whether the detention violated ECHR Article 5(1) (right to liberty) as incorporated domestically.
4. Whether binding obligations under the UN Charter, arising from Security Council action, prevailed over any conflicting ECHR Article 5(1) requirements.
5. Whether a formal derogation under ECHR Article 15 was required for the United Kingdom to depart from Article 5 limits in the operational setting.

## Decision

- The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeal.
- The detention was attributable to the United Kingdom, not to the United Nations, because operational command and control remained with troop-contributing states and the UN did not direct the detention regime.
- The detainee was within the United Kingdom’s jurisdiction for ECHR purposes while under the authority and control of British forces.
- Even assuming Article 5(1) applied, the United Kingdom’s obligations under the UN Charter to implement Security Council decisions prevailed over inconsistent ECHR obligations by virtue of UN Charter Articles 25 and 103.
- Accordingly, the security internment was not unlawful under Article 5(1) to the extent it fell within what the relevant Security Council authorization required or clearly permitted and was limited to the security purpose described.

## Legal Principles

- In multinational operations, UN authorization alone does not shift responsibility to the UN; attribution depends on effective operational control, including who directs and controls the conduct in question.
- A state’s human-rights obligations may apply extraterritorially where its forces exercise authority and control over an individual abroad.
- UN Charter Article 103 gives priority to Charter-based obligations over conflicting obligations arising under other international agreements, including human-rights treaties, when an actual conflict exists.
- Security Council mandates must be interpreted narrowly so as not to displace individual rights beyond what the text and purpose of the resolution clearly require or authorize.
- The absence of a formal ECHR derogation does not, by itself, prevent reliance on superior UN Charter obligations where a binding Security Council decision creates an unavoidable conflict with treaty-based liberty protections.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords held that the United Kingdom, not the United Nations, bore responsibility for the detention of a dual national by British forces in Iraq and that ECHR standards could apply extraterritorially; however, because Security Council authorization created UN Charter obligations that conflicted with ECHR Article 5(1), the Charter obligations prevailed, making the security internment lawful within the scope of that authorization.


R (Al-Jedda) v. Sec’y of State for Def., [2007] UKHL 58 (U.K. 2007)