The consequences of war: The UK's responsibility towards its interpreters / translators in Afghanistan

Abstract: The paper engages a provocative, multi-dimensional legal, moral and human rights issue that strikes at the heart of 21st century UK asylum law. Throughout the NATO Afghanistan military campaigns (headed by the International Security Assistance Force) in which the UK committed combat troops from 2001 to 2014, hundreds of local Afghan nationals were employed by the British Army as interpreters and translators. The value of these Afghani operatives to the overall NATO operation is undoubted. It might seem axiomatic that such Afghan personnel would obtain UK asylum when sought, given their post-war status in Afghanistan would likely be equated to that of traitors amongst the Taliban and others opposed to NATO during this protracted conflict. This research has two aims, the first is to conduct high level, comprehensive research into this provocative question that has prompted strong arguments on both sides. The second aim is to make an appropriate, reasoned, and scholarly contribution to an issue that is arguably a very accurate litmus test regarding a nation’s true character as a just, and responsible international community member committed to the 1951 Convention principles. The second research aim is directly connected to the nature and extent of any State’s ‘post-conflict obligations’ assumed when its armed forces have derived benefits from the efforts of war zone nationals. The research will properly engage the legal arguments generated by 1951 Convention claims. It will also span the closely intertwined political and moral arguments that have generated particular controversy in this sphere. The primary theories that guide this proposed research are provided in two David Miller articles from which considerable inspiration regarding the entire research topic have been taken. The proposed research will be advanced using argument analysis methodology.