How justice was found as a king lost his head

What has the trial and execution of an English king 360 years ago got to do with the 'war on terror', the birth of communism and principles found in Hong Kong's Basic Law? It sounds like an obscure trivia question, but leading human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson has the answer. Indeed, he has written a book on the subject - and it has just been translated into Chinese.

The 64-year-old Queen's Counsel, UN war crimes judge, author and television personality was in Hong Kong this month to deliver a speech at an international law conference. He also gave a talk at the University of Hong Kong about issues raised by his book, The Tyrannicide Brief, about the trial of Charles I in England in 1649. The Chinese-language version has recently gone on sale in Hong Kong and on the mainland.

Mr Robertson, speaking with his usual eloquence and passion, argues that the trial still has relevance today, as principles which emerged from that turbulent period of English history have been adopted around the world.

But would a book about the era of Roundheads and Cavaliers strike a chord with people in modern-day China?

'It is the one period in world history which should resonate in China,' he said in an interview with the Sunday Morning Post. 'It is the first time a country threw out its king under absolute rule and developed some of the principles that we acknowledge in human rights terms today.'

Ideas which emerged from that period had, centuries later, influenced Sun Yat-sen, played a part in the development of communism and found their way into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Basic Law, Mr Robertson said.

'It was a progenitor of communism. The Levellers were precisely that,' he said, referring to a group that he described as the world's first investigative journalists. 'They wanted everyone to have a stake in the country, to redistribute wealth, and that was one of the ideas which came from this momentous time.'

The independence of the judiciary, democracy and respect for civil liberties were other principles which were forged at that time, he added.

The book, previously published in English, tells the story of little-known lawyer John Cooke, who led the prosecution of the king and later paid with his life once the monarchy was restored. The trial, which saw Charles I accused of tyranny for leading his country into the carnage of the English civil war, established for the first time that a head of state could be held accountable for his actions.

It set a precedent which, in time, would contribute to the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals after the second world war, as well as the prosecutions of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, ex-Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and others. Attempts to prosecute state leaders for gross human rights violations continue to be controversial, as the International Criminal Court's recent indictment of Sudan's president, Lieutenant General Omar al-Beshir, for alleged crimes against humanity demonstrates.

In his talk at the university, Mr Robertson expressed support for the move. The backlash, however, saw Sudan order aid agencies out of the country. 'Beshir's reaction to the indictment really proves his guilt,' said Mr Robertson, adding that the expulsion of aid agencies showed 'utter disdain' for human rights in Darfur.

'It is his decision, which should not be blamed on the International Criminal Court. The ICC is a court, which has to follow the evidence,' he said.

During a question-and-answer session after his talk, the lawyer was asked if he had anything to say about the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen crackdown. He said he would have a better understanding of the human rights situation on the mainland after making his first visit there - he subsequently went on a trip to Beijing and Shanghai for the launch of his book there. But Mr Robertson added: 'I don't think the decision-makers of Tiananmen will be held to account any more than the [former US president George W.] Bush lawyers will be held to account for the torture at Guantanamo Bay.'

He stressed the importance of ensuring that trials of heads of state were fair. Mr Robertson was involved in initial efforts to train Iraqi lawyers for the trial of Hussein. But he laments the manner in which the proceedings were eventually conducted.

'I would denounce the Saddam proceedings, for they turned into an exercise not of justice, but wild justice.' He added: 'Saddam's proceedings had nothing in the end to do with international law, and [the outcome] can be said to have been preordained.'

There was laughter from the audience when the lawyer, with a mischievous grin, spoke of his own idea for dealing with the former Iraqi leader. 'I suggested we do what we had done years before to Napoleon and maybe put Saddam on St Helena. The British government took this seriously. The Foreign Office made some inquiries over St Helena and pointed out they were trying to develop a tourism industry there. I then said, 'why don't you put him on the Falkland Islands?''

The imposition of the death sentence on Hussein was a mistake, he said, which turned him into a martyr just as it did with Charles I. Other historical parallels are less obvious.

Mr Robertson said that, after the monarchy was restored in England, the new king, Charles II, had the problem of dealing with republicans who opposed him. He did not want to execute them, because they were likely to make stirring speeches from the scaffold. And he could not simply detain them because of England's habeas corpus laws. So the suggestion was made that they be held on offshore islands where habeas corpus did not apply.

'It was regarded as devious even then,' said Mr Robertson. The move provided Mr Bush with a historical precedent for holding terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay military base in Cuba. That precedent, however, was undermined by the fact that the British had, as long ago as 1679, passed a law ensuring that habeas corpus could apply offshore.

Mr Robertson, who was born in Australia and is based in Britain, is best known in Hong Kong for representing right of abode claimants in a landmark Court of Final Appeal case in 2001. When interviewed, days before the September 11 attacks in the US, he expressed disappointment about the state of human rights protection around the world.

Now, he is a little more upbeat. 'I think 9/11 was a big setback because of Guantanamo and torture and so forth - treating terrorism as if it is a war rather than a crime,' he told the Post. 'I think we've got over that hump. After eight years of the Bush administration we now have an idealist administration. I think [US President Barack] Obama if full of good intentions, but he will encounter great difficulties.'

The global financial crisis would mean less funding for human rights projects, the lawyer said. He is scathing in his criticism of the failings that brought about the crisis, but sees a key role for international law in helping the world emerge from it stronger.

'I think it is a time for shaking up ideas in the world, just as a lot of our economic ideas have been shaken up. We will come to see that this vast income inequality that caused such problems in the west is something which should be tackled.'

He added: 'The so-called free world will become a lot more socialist, with the taking over of businesses. Then there is the failure of this charade of regulation.

'How on Earth are we going to deal with tax havens? Regulation is a joke. A regulator that has no law behind him is an imposter, a fraud. There is a future for international law in dealing with corruption, in dealing with problems caused by a lack of regulation. Behind all the yabbering at G20 - all very fine idealism - voluntary regulation has failed. We must hold banks and tax havens to account.

'That requires international law. We are going to need a new regulator and that has to be the courts.'

He sees a role for Hong Kong to play in promoting human rights in Asia, by hosting international conferences and upholding rights and freedoms entrenched in the Basic Law. 'I think Hong Kong has been something of a beacon for press freedom in the region,' he said.

And Mr Robertson, who just made his first visit to the mainland, was delighted that his book had been approved for sale there. 'It is a real privilege to have it made available to Chinese readers,' Mr Robertson said, joking that he felt dizzy at the thought of 1.3 billion readers.

'I am very pleased it has been licensed, and it is good that it has been.'