The Conservative Party will push an amendment to the Armed Forces Bill that would allow the Defence Secretary to ignore the European Convention on Human Rights during times of war.

The major change would give Britain’s servicemen and women peace of mind that they can defend the country without the threat of being dragged through the courts on spurious human rights grounds.

The Tories’ amendment would introduce a duty on the Defence Secretary to consider derogating from the ECHR, under Article 15 of the treaty, before significant overseas military operations.

The convention includes the relevant article because its authors recognised that extraordinary circumstances, such as war, require different legal arrangements.

But increasingly, the ECHR’s overreach is frequently hampering the army’s ability to act effectively and swiftly.

While the Tories’ amendment wouldn’t automatically trigger derogation from the ECHR, it would force ministers to actively consider whether doing so is appropriate before a conflict.

Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, James Cartlidge, told the Mail: ‘Our Armed Forces operate in some of the most dangerous environments on earth.

‘When British troops are deployed on significant overseas operations, Ministers should at the very least be required to consider the circumstances of their operation.

‘This amendment introduces a sensible protection against lawfare. We will force a vote to ensure Ministers properly consider derogation from the ECHR where appropriate, helping to protect our personnel from the growing threat of lawfare – allowing them to focus on the mission at hand.

‘Only the Conservatives will take the tough decisions needed to keep Britain safe and stand up for the men and women who serve our country.’

A number of ECHR rulings over the past 15 years have significantly hamstrung British military operations overseas.

In 2011, the European Court of Human Rights made military actions subject to human rights litigation.

That same year, the court ruled that Britain’s detention of a suspected terrorist was unlawful, despite it being authorised by a UN Security Council resolution.

In 2013, the Supreme Court held that Article 2 claims brought by families of soldiers killed in Snatch Land Rovers were arguable, drawing military equipment decisions into human rights litigation.

And the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, which received thousands of allegations against UK soldiers and cost tens of millions of pounds, while securing no prosecutions, was established in part due to ECHR obligations.

Those investigated as part of the IHAT suffered terrible stress, had their lives put on hold, and many had their careers damaged.

But while many voters will think the Tories’ amendment to be sensible, the party may face an uphill battle protecting soldiers against the current government.

In April, Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, was accused of pursuing a ‘witch hunt’ against British troops when he was a senior lawyer in 2008.

Soldiers who had served their country on the battlefield were hounded with false allegations that they had tortured and murdered civilians after the 2004 Battle of Danny Boy in southern Iraq.

Emails revealed that Lord Hermer was warned that the claims were ‘nonsense’, and even expressed his own doubts.

In one astonishing message to colleague Martyn Day, a leading human rights lawyer, the Attorney General backed moves to publicise the lawsuits during an interview on Radio 4’s Today programme – noting it must leave ‘some wiggle room if the killings did not in fact happen’.

A spokesman for Lord Hermer insisted he was not aware that his clients were telling ‘deliberate lies’ until long afterwards.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: ‘We remain committed to the European Convention on Human Rights.

‘As the Minister for Armed Forces made clear, the UK cannot opt out of its obligations under the ECHR on a case-by-case basis.

‘Changing domestic law would not remove those obligations.’