Written by Caroline Montgomery

Introduction

In September 2023, the United Kingdom enacted the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act (“Legacy Act”) with the stated goal of “drawing a line under the Troubles” by ending most legal proceedings for Troubles-era crimes.¹Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, c. 34 (U.K.) [hereinafter Legacy Act]. The Legacy Act replaced prosecutions for troubles-era crimes and civil claims with a truth-recovery process administered by the newly created Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (“ICRIR”) and granted conditional amnesty to individuals willing to cooperate with investigations.²Id. §§ 2–7. The government defended the legislation as a necessary means of prioritizing truth and reconciliation over prosecutions that were becoming increasingly difficult to pursue after decades passed and the world shifted its focus.³See Julian O’Neill, NI Troubles: Legacy Act Immunity Clause ‘Breaches’ Human Rights, BBC News (Feb. 28, 2024), https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-68419238 (summarizing government arguments); see also Emma Craig, From Emergency Law to Transitional Justice: The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, 14 Oxford U. Undergraduate L.J. 61, 63–64 (2025) (noting emphasis on reconciliation over accountability).

Yet, the Legacy Act provoked sharp opposition. Victims’ families, Northern Irish political groups, the Irish government, and international human rights bodies condemned the legislation for foreclosing accountability for human rights abuses by ending the possibility for prosecution.⁴See Re McQuillan’s Application for Judicial Review, Blackstone Chambers (Dec. 15, 2021), https://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/re-mcquillans-application-for-judicial-review/; McKerr v. United Kingdom, App. No. 28883/95, ¶¶ 74, 107–115 (May 4, 2001), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-59451; Finucane v. United Kingdom, App. No. 29178/95, ¶¶ 67–71 (July 1, 2003), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61185. At the heart of this opposition lies a critical question: does the Legacy Act’s amnesty scheme, which eliminated the chance for accountability for human rights abuses, comply with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) and the Good Friday Agreement? Courts, international institutions, and civil society actors have increasingly concluded that it does not.⁵See United Kingdom: Adopting Northern Ireland Legacy Bill Will Undermine Justice for Victims, Truth Seeking and Reconciliation, Council of Eur. Comm’r for Hum. Rts. (June 20, 2023) https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/united-kingdom-adopting-northern-ireland-legacy-bill-will-undermine-justice-for-victims-truth-seeking-and-reconciliation; Sylvia Hui, Ireland to Launch a Legal Challenge Against the U.K. Government Over Troubles Amnesty Bill, AP (Dec. 20, 2023), https://apnews.com/article/northern-ireland-troubles-bill-amnesty-40825c78e97df4290c5c7a18e647e9ae; Craig, supra note 3, at 65–66.

Amnesty, Accountability, and the Duty to Investigate

The ECHR was incorporated into Northern Ireland law through the Good Friday Agreement.⁶United Kingdom-Ireland, Agreement Reached in the Multi-Party Negotiations (Good Friday Agreement), Apr. 10, 1998, Cm. 3883 [hereinafter Good Friday Agreement]. It guarantees fundamental rights, including the right to life under Article 2, the prohibition on torture under Article 3, and the right to a fair trial under Article 6.⁷European Convention on Human Rights arts. 2–3, 6, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221. The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) has long held that these provisions impose a procedural obligation on the U.K. to conduct effective, independent investigations into unlawful killings and allegations of state misconduct.⁸See McKerr, App. No. 28883/95, ¶¶ 111–115 (holding that the U.K. violated Art. 2 of the ECHR by failing to conduct an effective and independent investigation into a Troubles-era killing); Jordan v. United Kingdom, App. No. 24746/94, ¶¶ 94–94 (Sept. 25, 2001), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-21950.

This principle was firmly established in McKerr v. United Kingdom, where the Court found that the U.K. had failed to conduct effective investigations into the use of lethal force by security forces during the Troubles between the late 1960s to1998.⁹McKerr, App. No. 28883/95, ¶¶ 121, 160. Likewise, in Finucane v. United Kingdom, the Court held that the U.K. violated Article 2 by failing to conduct an adequate inquiry into the 1989 murder of Belfast human rights solicitor Patrick Finucane and allegations of collusion between state security forces and loyalist paramilitaries.¹⁰Finucane, App. No. 29178/95, ¶¶ 78–80 (holding that the U.K. breached Art. 2 by failing to conduct an effective investigation into the murder of Patrick Finucane). These cases stand for the principle that the duty to investigate is not satisfied by symbolic or truth-finding inquiries, but requires a process that is capable of leading to accountability.¹¹See id.; McKerr, App. No. 28883/95, ¶¶ 110–115.

The Legacy Act’s immunity provisions sharply depart from this jurisprudence. By eliminating the possibility of criminal prosecution or even civil litigation in exchange for conditional amnesty, the Legacy Act substitutes a weaker truth-recovery process for accountability mechanisms.¹²Legacy Act, § 43. This not only undermines victims’ right to effective investigations under Article 2 but risks normalizing impunity for serious human rights violations.¹³See Craig, supra note 3, at 67–68 (arguing immunity provisions undermine effective investigations).

Incompatibility with the Good Friday Agreement

The 1998 Good Friday Agreement committed the U.K. to incorporate the ECHR into domestic law and to ensure respect for human rights as part of Northern Ireland’s peace settlement.¹⁴Good Friday Agreement, Cm. 3883. The Legacy Act, however, stands in direct opposition with these commitments.

In February 2024, the Belfast High Court ruled in Re McQuillan’s Application for Judicial Review that the Legacy Act was incompatible with the ECHR, holding that its amnesty provisions violated the U.K.’s obligations to conduct effective investigations into Troubles-era abuses.¹⁵Re McQuillan’s Application for Judicial Review, Blackstone Chambers (Dec. 15, 2021), https://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/re-mcquillans-application-for-judicial-review/ (reporting Belfast High Court ruling that Troubles-era amnesty provisions violated U.K. obligations under the ECHR). The judgment underscored how incorporation of the ECHR through the Good Friday Agreement makes compliance an expectation and also a constitutional commitment within Northern Ireland’s legal framework.¹⁶See O’Neill, supra note 3 (reporting on High Court ruling).

International and Domestic Criticism

The Legacy Act also drew sharp international criticism. The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights warned that the legislation “would undermine the human rights of victims, as well as truth seeking, reconciliation and justice efforts.”¹⁷Council of Eur. Comm’r for Hum. Rts., supra note 5 (emphasizing that the Bill “would undermine the human rights of victims, as well as truth seeking, reconciliation and justice efforts”). UN human rights experts likewise expressed concern that the Legacy Act could set a dangerous precedent for post-conflict societies by normalizing amnesty in cases of grave violations of international law.¹⁸See Craig, supra note 3, at 65–66 (summarizing UN concerns).

The Irish government, emphasizing its role as co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement, initiated interstate proceedings before the ECtHR to challenge the Legacy Act’s compatibility with the U.K.’s obligations.¹⁹Hui, supra note 5. Domestically, political parties across Northern Ireland united in opposition, echoing the concerns of victims’ families who feared the legislation would deny them both justice and closure.²⁰See Craig, supra note 3, at 66; O’Neill, supra note 3.

The Government’s Defense and Counterarguments

The U.K. government defended the Legacy Act as a pragmatic compromise. Officials argued that prosecutions decades after the events of the Troubles were unlikely to succeed given deteriorating evidence and fading witness memories.²¹See O’Neill, supra note 3. They further claimed that conditional immunity might encourage greater disclosure of information, ultimately delivering more answers to families than prosecutions could provide.²²See Craig, supra note 3, at 70–72.

Some commentators agreed, contending that amnesty conditioned on cooperation could better serve truth recovery than costly and uncertain prosecutions.²³See McKerr, App. No. 28883/95, ¶¶ 74–75, 107–115; Finucane, App. No. 29178/95, ¶¶ 67–71, 78–80. However, critics counter that while prosecutions may indeed be difficult, eliminating accountability mechanisms entirely undermines both the ECHR and the peace framework established by the Good Friday Agreement.²⁴See McKerr, App. No. 28883/95, ¶¶ 74–75, Finucane, App. No. 29178/95, ¶¶ 67–71.

Conclusion: Repeal and the Path Forward

Following the Belfast High Court’s judgment, the U.K. government announced its intention to repeal and replace the Legacy Act.²⁵See Craig, supra note 3, at 73. As of early 2025, however, no replacement framework has been enacted, leaving uncertainty about how the U.K. will fulfill its international and domestic obligations.²⁶See O’Neill, supra note 3. The repeal offers an opportunity to realign Northern Ireland’s legacy mechanisms with international standards. A replacement framework should ensure independent and effective investigations into conflict-related abuses, allow for prosecutions where evidence exists, and incorporate truth-recovery mechanisms that meaningfully respect victims’ rights. Without such reforms, the U.K. risks remaining in breach of its obligations under the ECHR and undermining the very foundations of the Good Friday Agreement.²⁷See Craig, supra note 3, at 74–75.

The Legacy Act illustrates the deep tension between reconciliation and accountability in post-conflict societies. By prioritizing expedience over justice, the law undermined victims’ rights, the Good Friday Agreement, and the U.K.’s obligations under the ECHR.²⁸See Re McQuillan’s Application for Judicial Review, Blackstone Chambers (Dec. 15, 2021), https://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/re-mcquillans-application-for-judicial-review/. The broader implications are troubling. If states can legislate amnesty to shield serious human rights violations from scrutiny, accountability everywhere may be weakened. True reconciliation cannot come at the expense of justice. For Northern Ireland, real progress will require a renewed commitment to balancing truth and accountability. By ensuring both, the U.K. can fulfill its obligations under international law, honor the promises of the Good Friday Agreement, and help secure a more just peace.²⁹See Good Friday Agreement, Cm. 3883.