The Centre for Human Rights in Practice has again arranged with Coventry Law Centre for a small number of Warwick law students in their 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th years to have the opportunity to volunteer in the asylum and immigration team. This is an excellent opportunity for students to gain practical legal experience in one of the country's leading law centres. It is particularly valuable for those considering a career in refugee/asylum law or other areas of human rights-related practice. Volunteers will be selected through submission of CVs and interviews. For more details on the application process, the Law Centre and the role of student volunteers see info on the Centre's student activities page -http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/research/centres/chrp/studentactivities/

The final deadline for submission of CV and covering letter is Monday 8^th October at 5.00pm. Please email applications to me at J.Harrison.3@warwick.ac.uk.

There will be a presentation on Friday 5th October at 11am in OC0.01 by Robert Bircumshaw, head of the asylum and immigration team at Coventry Law Centre, explaining about their work and the nature of the volunteering opportunities. You will have an opportunity then to ask any questions you may have.

Centre co-director Prof Andrew Williams publishes 'Forgotten trials: the other side of Nuremberg' in History Extra, based on research for his recent book A Passing Fury: Searching for Justice at the End of World War II.

"A landmark in the history of international criminal justice, the Nuremberg Tribunal saw 24 major Nazi criminals brought to trial, with judges from the Allied powers presiding over the hearings. Eleven prominent Nazis were sentenced to death, while others received short prison sentences or no penalty at all. But, says Orwell Prize-winning author AT Williams, while the Nuremberg Tribunal became a symbol of the ‘free world’s’ choice of justice in the face of tyranny, aggression and atrocity, it was only a tiny fragment of a whole system of largely forgotten war crimes trials organised by the Allies across Europe".

Centre co-director Prof Andrew Williams recently published an article on Chilcot Report: Law in The Political Quarterly based on his ongoing research on the Iraq investigations.

---

Questions of law permeate the Chilcot Report. All are shrouded in uncertainty. From the constitutional relationship between Prime Minister, Cabinet and Parliament to the legality of going to war, the Inquiry presided over by Sir John Chilcot touched upon many controversial legal issues. It resolved none. But then, it was not a court of law or a judicial inquiry, and never pretended to be. No one could have reasonably expected it to pronounce with conviction any judgement on the lawfulness of acts and decisions made by those who took the UK to war in Iraq. Instead, the Report provides information useful for those who wish to reach such judgements. Lawyers are already searching the vast document to inspire possible litigation, though that was not the concern of the Inquiry. It was supposed to determine what happened and learn lessons. Those were its very broad terms of reference.

But did the Inquiry deal effectively or properly with the legal issues which framed many of the decisions and actions it examined? In this article I look briefly at two key areas where law had particular relevance but, it is argued, received insufficient attention: the legal basis for going to war; and the conduct of the occupation after the initial hostilities were concluded. Both involve the application of international legal standards—a slippery subject for those seeking exactitude, but valuable for judging the political and military leaders nonetheless.