IMAGINE the situation. In a future conflict in a country far away, a British Army patrol encounters a group of possible insurgents who ignore all requests to identify themselves as friend or foe.

As the tension rises, the commander thinks he can see weapons and hears safety catches being released. With time running out, he gives the order to open fire.

Shots ring out and figures fall to the ground. There are two possible outcomes: either the commander acted responsibly and professionally to destroy a perceived threat or, in the shattered aftermath, the patrol moves tentatively forwards only to find that the enemy is not only unarmed but consists mainly of children.

Is this a war crime or a mistake made in the fog of war? And is it right that the soldiers should be investigated and face due legal process, as indeed they would under the circumstances?

Or, if not, should they be subject to private prosecution for alleged abuses of human rights? About £100 million has been spent since 2004 dealing with thousands of cases lodged against soldiers who served in Iraq.

This is the kind of conundrum the proposed derogating of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is intended to address by allowing UK forces to withdraw from it in time of future war.

Those in favour argue that it will allow soldiers to take difficult decisions on the battlefield without fear of facing future legal action.

Those opposed to the move claim that suspending ECHR will encourage soldiers to cover up genuine human rights abuses and allow outrages such as the well-publicised torture of enemy prisoners of war by US guards at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Not unnaturally, the issue has become a heated talking point in military circles even though we are living in a period with a low tempo of operations compared to the past 14 years.

Recently, there has been an unprecedented rise in the number of historic private cases brought by lawyers under human rights laws.

In so doing serious accusations have been made against groups of soldiers and individuals but most have failed to withstand even the most rudimentary scrutiny. At the same time, the soldiers concerned have faced long periods of worry over what might happen to them and their careers. Not only does this process cause personal distress to individuals who have given loyal service to their country but it also costs the taxpayer millions of pounds.

So tortuous has the system become that younger commanders argue that a time will come when they will have to be accompanied into action by legal experts who will give the final order about whether or not to engage with an enemy. They are not always joking when they make that claim.

Selective withdrawing from ECHR is a first step to address this vexed issue. Fear of private prosecution by unscrupulous lawyers does nothing for soldiers’ morale and it risks undermining the operational effectiveness of the army while it is on active service operations.

It is also a serious disincentive to recruitment and retention and adds to the belief that there is an unbridgeable gap between the armed forces and civilian society.

As for those who fear that the move will open the door to human rights abuses and will encourage soldiers on operations to behave as they want to and not as they should, there is a simple response.

On the battlefield, British soldiers are not a mob waiting for the first available opportunity to do as they please and open fire at will.

They are highly disciplined and professional operators who carry out their duties within a recognised command structure which, due to modern means of communication, gives real-time access to those further up the chain.

They also have rules of engagement that are strictly imposed and are understood by commanders even before shots are fired. It is a tried-and-tested system that relies on good sense, attention to detail and, above all, discipline and self-control.

If all else fails, soldiers are still subject to the Geneva Conventions and articles of ECHR relating to torture will remain in place despite the general derogation.

Besides, the UK is not the first nation to take this step. Ukraine gave notice of withdrawing from ECHR in the midst of the fighting on its border with Russian forces in June 2015; France signalled it would derogate in the aftermath of the jihadist massacres in Paris last November; and Turkey lodged a similar intention following the failed military coup against its president in July.