United Kingdom (UK) Prime Minister Keir Starmer, as we all know, outraged United States (US) President Donald Trump by originally refusing to allow unrestricted American use of British military bases in the ongoing war with Iran, Starmer’s reasoning being that the US-Israeli attack on Iran was unlawful and that therefore any British support for it would be equally unlawful.

As it turned out, Starmer refused Trump’s initial demand on grounds of international law, though it is also arguable whether Trump’s demand was also not in Britain’s national interest. But Starmer gradually weakened, so that soon US planes were flying from British bases to knock out Iranian missile sites, which inevitably entailed inflicting collateral damage around those sites. From an Iranian point of view this meant Britain was a full participant.

Let us leave aside any views we may have about Trump or the Iran war. The real question is whether citing international law is a sound basis for making major foreign policy decisions.

First, we should take note that this debate could not have taken place in the pre-1945 period for it was only after the Second World War that the entire attempt to build a corpus of international law was made, basing itself on the United Nations Charter. Prior to that it was taken as axiomatic that countries decided about entering or not entering wars on the basis of their national interests. That was not only how Hitler and Mussolini saw things, but also Churchill, Roosevelt and everyone else.

In Britain, Starmer’s actions have drawn fire from the Conservatives and Reform precisely because both these parties believe that consideration of the national interest is still the right basis for making such decisions.

First, to refuse to give unconditional support to America was to endanger the “special relationship” which has been the key basis of British policy since 1940.

Secondly, Iran under the Ayatollahs has frequently, indeed routinely, mounted terrorist plots against the UK and sought to hurt British interests and British subjects. On any reasonable basis it had to be considered an enemy nation.

Moreover, there was no doubt that Iran had been pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons and that if it obtained this objective Britain would be in the first rank of those thus threatened.

Not First Time

True, this is not the first time that Britain has declined to support an American war. Winston Churchill resisted US pressure to get involved in France’s IndoChina war in 1954, after France’s epochal defeat at Dien Bien Phu. Similarly, Lyndon Johnson exerted strong pressure on Harold Wilson’s government to join America’s war in Vietnam but Wilson refused. In both cases Churchill and Wilson acted purely on the basis of British national interests.

Wilson behaved as he did because Britain was in any case retreating from the world east of Suez and it made no sense to get involved in a major Asian war. Britain had its hands full dealing with the European Economic Community (EEC), the Rhodesian Unilateral Declaration of Independence, and its own domestic problems. The last thing it could afford was the vast expense of a major Asian war undertaken merely to please American wishes – and at a time when Britain’s European allies suspected Britain was too subject to American influence to be allowed to enter the EEC (the predecessor to the European Union).

Most countries do still act on the basis of national interest. That basis of decision is universally understood and even in non-democratic states there is a strong expectation – and demand – from the person in the street that government should act in that way. But only a minority in most countries even understands much about international law.

Indeed, one has to ask if international law really exists in the way that laws within countries do. If someone commits a murder in any country, they will face the certainty of being judged in terms of that country’s laws on the matter, the only exceptions being in the most corrupt and undemocratic regimes, where laws of any kind are questionable and negotiable.

Deny Existence

But the problem with international law is that many countries not merely flout it but effectively deny its existence. When China was found to have violated the International Law of the Sea by its assertion of sovereignty over the South China Sea, China simply ignored the ruling, continued not just to assert but to enforce its claims to sovereignty – and suffered no penalty as a result. Similarly, Putin ignored international law when he invaded Ukraine, Iran ignored it when it lashed out at virtually all its neighbours, just as Trump and Netanyahu ignored it when they launched their assault on Iran.

Indeed, when Trump was asked about international law he said, “I don’t need it,” probably misunderstanding the question. Trump is used to acting on whims and the job of his advisers is then to find some piece of law or precedent that can be cited as legitimating such actions.

What Trump probably meant is that thus far no adviser has suggested using international law as legitimation. In fact, it’s clear that Trump is barely aware of what is construed as international law and certainly doesn’t feel constrained by it.

In fact, it’s easier to say which countries do pay any heed to international law than to say which don’t. Perhaps thirty Western countries, mainly in Europe, tend to cite international law as a consideration. Authoritarian regimes, dictatorships, and Third World countries almost never do or so only opportunistically on occasions when it suits them.

South Africa, for example, has sided with Iran by criticising the US-Israeli action against it as contravening international law, but when Russia invaded Ukraine – a flagrant offence in international law – South Africa refused to condemn it.

Dog Eat Dog

This situation places advocates of international law in a difficult position. What is the point or even the validity of a law that is not accepted or observed by a majority of states, including many of the most likely aggressor states?

In that situation, accusations of international illegality are simply noises made by victim-states as they get trampled by more ruthless realpolitik states. Worse still, those who, like Starmer, cite international law as reasons why their countries may not do certain things are merely constraining themselves although they face potential enemies who are not similarly constrained.

In such circumstances adherence to international law is merely an extra self-imposed handicap in a rough, dog-eats-dog real world.

Moreover, there is a strong sense in which the rise of human rights lawyers to prominence in many Western countries has had a disabling effect on government. More or less by definition, such lawyers tend to be focused on all the things a state must not do – plus, of course, a wider penumbra of things that a state probably should not do because in a court of law “it might be argued that” such things might be wrong.

And this sort of thing tends to be powerful because most Western governments and legislatures are only too fully stocked with lawyers who are trained to be responsive to such arguments.

Britain is indeed a classic case of this self-disabling trend. When Starmer won the 2024 election one of his first acts was to ennoble his close friend, campaign contributor, and fellow human rights lawyer, Richard Hermer, and appoint him as the government’s Attorney-General.

Cases

Hermer’s career as a barrister may be judged from the cases he has chosen to represent.

He defended Abid Naseer, a Pakistani whom the Home Office wished to deport. Naseer was an Al-Qaeda operative who was planning to carry out the bombing of a Manchester shopping centre. Harmer demanded – unsuccessfully – that Naseer be set free and allowed to remain in the UK. Hermer acted for four former Mau Mau fighters suing the British government for ill treatment while they had been detained in the 1950s, winning them £20 million in compensation, and he advised various Caribbean islands who were seeking reparations for slavery from Britain.

Hermer acted for the so-called “ISIS Beatles” who had carried out the beheading of two American journalists and two British aid workers.

He acted for Shamima Begum, one of the young women who had emigrated to Syria to marry Islamic State militants, but who later wished to return to Britain. Hermer argued that the Home Secretary’s deprivation of Begum’s British citizenship should not be allowed to stand because it was “extremely draconian”.

Hermer acted for the convicted terrorist Rangzieb Ahmed, who sued the British government, claiming it had a shared responsibility for his torture while in detention in Pakistan.

Hermer represented Abu Zubaydah, a Palestinian former Guantanamo Bay detainee and Al-Qaeda suspect, who similarly tried to sue the British government for his coercive treatment while in American hands.

Hermer represented a Saudi Arabian terrorist, Mustafa al-Hawsawi, who was trying to exact damages from the British for his ill treatment by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Hermer similarly represented Gerry Adams, the former Sinn Fein and Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) leader, in a case against Adams brought by victims of Provisional IRA bombings. In all these cases Hermer was unsuccessful.

Hermer also advised the Labour Party in 2023 when the Conservative government brought in what was known as the “Anti-BDS Bill”. The Conservatives objected that Hermer had “a record” and should not have been “the calibre of individual” that the Labour Party should rely on for advice.

As Michael Gove, the Tory minister, put it, Hermer has “a record of political commitments” which everyone could see “predisposes him towards a political and particular view”.

Although Hermer denied this, he had made public statements that Britain must indeed pay reparations for slavery, that all statues of Cecil Rhodes should be pulled down, and that every Minister of Education should be forced to read about the violence of the British Empire before they took office.

Hermer also played a key role in advising the Labour government to hand over the Chagos Islands (including the Diego Garcia base) to Mauritius with a payment of £35 billion to Mauritius. This deal has been widely attacked not only for its expense and the risk to Diego Garcia but its neglect of the rights of the Chagos Islanders, who do not wish to be placed under the rule of Mauritius, which is 1 360 miles away and has no real connection with the Chagos.

Last Person

Hermer, who is regarded as a great expert on international law, was apparently the person to whom Starmer turned for advice on whether the US should be allowed to use British bases in the war against Iran. Given Hermer’s record and his outspoken dislike of Donald Trump, it was hardly surprising that he advised that the US should be denied the use of these bases.

Since the preservation of Britain’s “special relationship” with America and the fact that Iran is clearly an enemy country are not legal considerations, Hermer will have completely disregarded them – although in fact both factors are critical to any judgement as to the wisdom of the decision to deny American use of the bases.

As one looks at Hermer’s record one cannot but feel that he is the last person whom one would want to consult if Britain was in an international crisis. He has, after all, spent his entire career arguing that Britain is in the wrong about just about everything and that Britain’s national interest should not be considered.

Yet national interests do exist and are immensely powerful in determining public opinion – again, something with which a member of the House of Lords like Hermer may not be concerned but which any elected political leader must take into account.

Traditionally, if one’s country found itself in the midst of an international crisis, a political leader would consult his political colleagues, his foreign affairs specialists, and the heads of his armed services. One cannot but feel that that was a great deal wiser in such a situation than asking for advice from a human rights lawyer.

Since 1945 Britain has only been involved in relatively small-scale military actions fought at arm’s length: Britain’s own national territory has not been involved and perhaps that is why such ridiculous behaviour could occur. Contrast that with Israel, which has had to fight for its existence over and over again since 1948.

In international law the only justifiable war is one of national defence but Israel has continuously faced enemies determined to wipe it from the map. In 1967, in 2025 and again in 2026 Israel has attacked enemies pre-emptively and yet it is hard to say this was wrong.

In 1967 Egypt was planning to attack Israel and Cairo Radio was already boasting of victories in battles yet to be fought.

In 2025 and 2026 Israel faced a regime whose slogan was “Death to Israel” and which was close to acquiring nuclear weapons.

Had the Israelis paid heed to international law they would have waited to be attacked before responding, a potentially suicidal choice. Can one really blame the Israelis for placing national survival before abstract legal principle?