The Indian AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Protection Act) protects Indian soldiers from nuisance from humanitarian associations, among other benefits.

Is there any US and UK equivalent law for protecting their soldiers from such associations?

  • 2
    In the US the Constitution specifically prohibits the behavior that is authorized by the AFSPA. That is not to say it will never happen just that any of this type of action would be an Unconstitutional abuse of power. Apr 2 '14 at 14:23
  • 2
    Generally, only in backward societies do people think of humanitarian associations as "nuisance".
    – prash
    Apr 20 '14 at 9:40
  • 1
    I think @RegisteredUser needs to provide a more detailed description of the AFSPA to get a good answer. These "bridging" questions are difficult to answer, because there are few people who are going to be expert in both Indian and US/UK law. Based upon the very vague data provided here candidates could include the U.S. Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act, and U.S. refusal to join the ICC, but I don't know enough about the AFSPA to speak knowledgeably. May 3 '16 at 19:59
  • 1
    @RegisteredUser I think you are wrongly over-dramatic there. In the scenario you mentioned, Soldiers are being threatened and they have to perform their sworn duty of securing their borders from such infiltrator. It would be a HR violation if a soldier killed someone like that after he surrendered.The specific law you mentioned is specifically designed to save soldiers from legal ramifications of their Crimes in Kashmir, against civilians who resent Indian rule and against other dissidents in Assam or Punjab etc
    – NSNoob
    Jun 20 '17 at 8:44
  • 2
    If I am not wrong, the sole reason for asking this question is "Hah, you people have similar black laws too, stop picking on India"? It is really sad to see that many citizens of World's largest democracy see Human rights as nothing more than a nuisance in way of Expansion.
    – NSNoob
    Jun 20 '17 at 8:45

No there is no such equivalent law.

In the USA it would probably be unconstitutional. In the UK it would likely contravene the Human Rights act.

There are laws that allow soldiers to kill on the battlefield, but not out of war zones. However, learn about the Bloody Sunday killings to see that it is possible for killings committed by soldiers to go unpunished.

  • British soldiers are still being hounded or tried for their actions in Ireland, N.Ireland, Afghanistan etc (Albeit unsuccessfully) e.g. case of Marine A. That alone should be enough evidence that at least officially UK doesn't provide any legal protections to soldiers accused of committing crimes on duty.
    – NSNoob
    Jun 20 '17 at 8:40
  • @NSNoob The case against Alexander Blackman (Marine A) wasn't unsuccessful. He is still convicted of manslaughter.
    – Richard
    Jun 20 '17 at 9:26
  • @Richard that's true. I personally believe the release after 3 years to be practically a failure (But that's of course my opinion which doesn't change the fact that he is convicted).
    – NSNoob
    Jun 20 '17 at 9:31
  • @NSNoob you mean the UK doesn't provide additional legal protections to soldiers accused of committing crimes on duty. They still have the rights that anyone else would, hence their anonymity during the trial.
    – origimbo
    Jun 20 '17 at 10:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .