Digest opened free editor

Rola Khaleda, FT editor, chooses her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

There is a new evil in British policy. The Attorney General, Lord Hermer, finds himself being attacked for being adhering to the law. Colleagues and opponents talk about “Hermeria”. Strangers may find strange attacks. When does the bad belief in supporting the rule of law become a badge of shame?

There are two dimensions for attacks. The first is the political attacks of his left -wing views and Clients It was previously represented. He became an agent of Sir Kerr Starmer, who appointed and his old friend as head of law in the government. The second is related to a greater issue than Britain’s commitment to the virtue of international and local law. Hermer’s true crime is his devotion to this principle when many do not want any judicial restrictions on the executive authority.

Hermer, a famous human rights lawyer, was tantamount to appointing a Starmer. in Lecture last year, He announced that his mission was to “restore our reputation as a country that supports the rule of law at every turn and by including flexibility to reject the popular challenge.” Unlike Boris Johnson’s years, the UK will be a hero of international courts and defend judges and lawyers who work “to reduce their legitimacy.” A strong defender of the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court and the European Convention on Human Rights, completely embodies the Conservative Party’s attack that the Labor Party is the government of “lawyers who are not leaders” who give priority to left -wing views of the British interests.

Lord Fallon, a former work consultant, opposes Hermer Caricature as “some crazy left lawyer.” But he makes enemies on his part. Fellows accuse him of being a barrier that encourages government lawyers to retract the measures they believe is illegal. Labor peer, Lord Morris Glassman, condemned him “Check the arrogant gradual.” Some diluted attacks – one condition He accused him and Sarmer of “poisoning our children against Britain.”

Other attacks emanate from a deal with Mauritius, which is sovereignty of strategic importance Shaghus Islands After the negative ICJ (albeit with a 99 -year rental for Diego Garcia’s military base). The issue has long preceded Hermer, whose role has been exceeded, and in the authority that the conservatives accepted.

But Hermer’s fate is a secondary for the largest battle for international law. Opponents argue that international courts and bodies, which have been created in the form of the United Kingdom, have changed. The influence of Russia, China and the global south makes them less convenient for the United Kingdom. the Icj The committee that sentenced the Shaghous deal Judges From the previous European colonies, as well as from Russia and China. If we ignore the United States and others from Trump, international law, critics argue that the United Kingdom is weakening itself by adhering to it.

Echr (listed in British law) is more complicated. It practices local laws for the provisions of the Patriotic Court, whose scope is largely expanded until their jurisdiction after the war. Conservatives and reforms in the United Kingdom in Nigel Farraj cite the courts of courts that prevent the deportation of foreign criminals or illegal immigrants on the deceptive Echr foundations like the right to family life. They want Britain to withdraw.

Hermer is committed to Echr and argues that criticism is exaggerated. (Many deportations are banned by countries that refuse to restore people.) But they cannot ignore political challenges. It is a dangerous area of ​​the law when reasonable voters cannot understand why judges are forced to recognize or not deport violent criminals. Convention reform is very difficult – it may only be those who support it to secure change. But without it, Echr is increasingly weapon, instead of populists.

While Echr is a special challenge, there is an antibiotic argument for those who pushed back against international law in general. The United Kingdom is no longer a global power. It sits in any large political bloc and relies on bodies that support the rules -based system. It will not flourish in the wild West, as Russia can invade Ukraine without consequences or intimidation of Jerinland’s intimidation.

Britain has a firm, fighting interest for a post -war order helped design. It is one thing to object to the conditions of the Chagos deal, but it is difficult to tell those many countries that are already considered international law as a tool for the West that you can abandon it at the moment when it becomes uncomfortable. Despite all the occasional repercussions, Britain has a share in maintaining order.

Looking at a nation that supports law also provides economic benefits. There is value for investors in the UK, which is seen as a stable nation where the law is applied expected.

Hermer performs the job that Starmer rented to do. It needs to improve relationships with business representatives. But he is now politically exposed to a degree that can undermine his case. The rupture may not be imminent, but a little doubt is that the Prime Minister is ruthless enough to cut it if necessary.

In both cases, Britain’s self -interest is to combat efforts to erode international law. The alternative is to return to the right -wing approach that Trump seems to be rushing. This may suit the United States or China, but those who believe it serves the UK have an old vision of its weight in the world.

Robert.shrimsley@ft.com