Allowing British soldiers to sue could put troops at even greater risk The claims followed casualties in Iraq after a "friendly fire" incident between two Challenger tanks, and when a Snatch Land Rover patrol hit roadside bombs. The Ministry of Defence was accused of negligence in equipping the tanks and jeeps, training the servicemen and operational decision-making. In an unprecedented judgment, the court abandoned the bar to negligence claims against the MoD in such circumstances, and expanded the "right to life," under the HRA, to allow the claims to proceed. However, the Government faces a stream of tough decisions, from which military hardware to invest in to tactical choices made in the heat of battle. An elastic notion of human rights offers a narrow lens through which to assess complex considerations, embroiling courts in second-guessing decisions by military commanders, the MoD and ministers. Likewise, a surge of litigation risks diverting the very money that should be spent on training, equipment and care. In a searing dissenting opinion, Lord Mance warned the decision would "make extensive litigation almost inevitable after, as well as quite possibly during and even before, any active service operations... It is likely to lead to the judicialisation of war. Far from protecting troops, it leaves the military fighting with one eye on the threat of legal liability, a massive distraction from the effective conduct of operations - which could put troops at greater risk. The full implications remain unclear. What happens if troops are caught off-guard or stretched thin? Lord Mance made clear the risk that litigation could even be used to prevent military operations from proceeding. If such opaque standards had applied at the time, would judges have intervened to halt the rescue of hostages during the 1980 Iranian embassy siege, or the mission to recapture the Falkland Islands? Remarkably, the slippery extension of human rights now makes this kind of thing a real possibility. Such finely balanced military, political and ultimately moral assessments must remain squarely in the realm of political accountability, not adjudication. Judges are poorly placed to make, nor can they be held accountable for, such fluid and high-risk analysis. This is just the latest judicial innovation using the HRA to extend human rights, effectively rewriting the law of negligence, which ought to be left to accountable law-makers in Parliament. Disturbingly, the Supreme Court has also reverted to a self-imposed duty to slavishly match all of the case law spewed out by the European Court in Strasbourg - something neither the European Convention nor the HRA requires British courts to do. While our hearts go out to the families of the fallen, our heads must recognise yet another case that cries out for reform of our undemocratic human rights laws.