Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
There is a new Bond villain in British politics. The attorney-general, Lord Hermer, finds himself under attack for being a stickler for the law. Colleagues and opponents talk unflatteringly of “Hermerism”. Outsiders might find the attacks odd. When did a fierce belief in upholding the rule of law become a badge of dishonour?
There are two dimensions to the attacks. The first are ad hominem political assaults over his leftwing views and the clients he previously represented. He has become a proxy for critics of Sir Keir Starmer, who appointed and ennobled his old friend as the government’s chief law officer. The second relates to the greater issue of Britain’s commitment to the rule of international and domestic law. Hermer’s real offence is his devotion to this principle when many on the populist right want no judicial constraints on the executive.
Hermer, a noted human rights lawyer, was a statement appointment by Starmer. In a lecture last year, he declared his mission was the “restoration of our reputation as a country that upholds the rule of law at every turn and by embedding resilience to rebuff the populist challenge”. In contrast to the Boris Johnson years, the UK would be a champion of international courts and defend judges and lawyers from populists working “to diminish their legitimacy”. A staunch defender of the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court and the European Convention on Human Rights, he perfectly embodies the Tory attack that Labour is a government of left-wing “lawyers not leaders” who prioritise left-wing views over British interests.
Lord Falconer, a former Labour lord chancellor, disputes the caricature of Hermer as “some mad leftie lawyer”. But he is making enemies on his own side. Colleagues accuse him of being a blocker who has encouraged government lawyers to push back hard on measures they believe unlawful. Labour peer Lord Maurice Glasman denounced him as an “arrogant progressive fool”. Some attacks are demented — one article accused him and Starmer of having “poisoned our children against Britain”.
Other attacks spring from a deal with Mauritius, passing on sovereignty over the strategically important Chagos Islands after an adverse ICJ ruling (albeit with a 99-year leaseback for Diego Garcia’s military base). The matter long predates Hermer, whose role has been overstated, and in power the Conservatives had accepted the ruling.
But Hermer’s fate is secondary to the bigger battle for the global rule of law. Opponents argue that international courts and bodies, once established in the UK’s image, have changed. The influence of Russia, China and the global south is rendering them less favourable to the UK. The ICJ panel which ruled on the Chagos deal included judges from former European colonies as well as from Russia and China. If Trump’s US and others are disregarding international law, critics argue, the UK weakens itself by clinging on to it.
The ECHR (incorporated into British law) is more complex. It subordinates domestic laws to the rulings of a supranational court whose scope has expanded significantly beyond its postwar remit. Tories and Nigel Farage’s Reform UK cite instances of the courts preventing deportation of foreign criminals or illegal migrants on specious ECHR grounds such as the right to a family life. They want Britain to withdraw.
Hermer and Starmer are committed to the ECHR and argue the criticisms are overstated. (Many deportations are blocked by countries refusing to take people back.) But they cannot ignore the political challenges. It is dangerous territory for the law when reasonable voters cannot understand why judges force a country to admit or not to deport violent criminals. Reforming the convention is extremely difficult — it may be that only those who support it can secure change. But without it the ECHR is increasingly a weapon for, rather than a bulwark against, populists.
While the ECHR is a particular challenge, there is a vital counter argument to those pushing back against international law generally. The UK is no longer a world power. It sits in no major political bloc and is reliant on bodies which uphold the rules-based order. It will not thrive in a wild west where Russia can invade Ukraine without consequences or Trump terrorise Greenland.
Britain has a vested interest in fighting for the postwar order it helped design. It is one thing to dispute the terms of the Chagos deal but harder to tell those many nations who already view international law as an instrument of the west that you can abandon it the moment it becomes inconvenient. For all the occasional reverses, Britain has a stake in preserving the system.
Being seen as a nation which upholds the law also offers economic advantages. There is value to investors in the UK being seen as a stable nation where the law is predictably enforced.
Hermer is doing the job Starmer hired him to do. He needs to improve relations with Labour MPs. But he is now politically exposed to a degree that could undermine his cause. A rupture may not be imminent but few doubt the prime minister is ruthless enough to cut him loose if necessary.
Either way, Britain’s self-interest lies in fighting efforts to erode international law. The alternative is a return to the might-is-right approach Trump appears to be hastening. This may suit the US or China but those who think it serves the UK have an outdated view of its weight in the world.
robert.shrimsley@ft.com