Soviet-style justice

[JohnLocke]

Soviet-style justice
The Jerusalem Post
January 5, 2003

Does the international community wish to continue the systematic destruction of its institutions on the altar of the Arab-Israeli conflict? This, not Israel's security fence, is the question that will shortly be before the International Court of Justice in the Hague.
First the UN General Assembly let the tyranny of tyrannies reign when automatic majorities routinely treated one nation, Israel, as a pariah, "racist" state. This deterioration is so complete that the UN routinely ignores its own rules in its zeal to condemn Israel. It has, for example, called "emergency" sessions to condemn Israel even when the GA itself is in session.
Next the politicization spread to humanitarian bodies and human-rights issues. At the UN Human Rights Commission, Israel was the only country singled out for condemnation by the agenda itself, before the annual session began, and 30 percent of the resolutions condemned Israel alone.
Just weeks ago, Israel felt compelled to abstain on an annual GA resolution condemning religious intolerance when the sponsoring nation, Ireland, refused specifically to mention anti-Semitism, and a separate resolution condemning anti-Semitism had been blocked.
This was small potatoes compared to Israel's singling out as the only country in 53 years to warrant the condemnation of the contracting parties of the Geneva Convention, who slept peacefully as Cambodians, Sudanese, Rwandans, etc. were slaughtered.
Similarly, at the 2001 Durban conference, a gathering "against" racism was transformed into a hatefest against Israel, thereby committing the crime it was set to combat.
(…)
The UN, and now its judicial arm, are not only failing to combat this fundamental breach of international security and human rights; they are central parties to it. The fence is not the real issue here. The ICJ is letting itself be used in a campaign to brand Israel as an "apartheid state" which, of course, has no right to exist.
Israel is not the only victim of this crime. By selecting Israel as the paradigm of the outlaw state, the international community is abandoning the millions of people who live under real tyrannies and whose governments are the real threats to peace and security.
"I say to my wife and my people, Next Year in Jerusalem," said Natan Sharansky, standing before the Soviet court that sentenced him to 13 years in prison. "To this court, which has only read a sentence prepared long ago – to you I have nothing to say."
That something called the International Court of Justice is poised to put Israel in a similar position is not just a tragedy for this country, but for the world.

Read the rest here.

[JohnLocke]

1. Very good article.

[JohnLocke]

2. Kick

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Dissenting

From the JPost editorial:

If the ICJ were a fair court, it would have rejected the UN's attempt to politicize it on multiple counts.
First, that the UN did not bother to wait to pronounce and condemn Israel on the very question for which it sought the court's "advisory opinion," namely the legality of the security fence.
Second, because the UN entirely ignored the suicide terrorism that necessitates the fence's construction.
Third, because the court is not even supposed to involve itself on "contentious issues" without the express consent of the parties.
And fourth, because the Geneva Convention itself, which the fence supposedly violates, either does not apply at all, or allows for self-defense and even for the confiscation of land for "imperative military necessity."

While I agree that there is something improper about the UN first passing a resolution criticizing the fence and then asking the ICJ for an opinion on the matter, that should not invalidate the Court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Neither should the fact that the UN has failed to address the problem of terrorism.

The court's jurisdiction is laid down in Article 36 of the Statute of the Court:

1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.

2. The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning:

• a. the interpretation of a treaty;
• b. any question of international law;
• c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;
• d. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.

3. The declarations referred to above may be made unconditionally or on condition of reciprocity on the part of several or certain states, or for a certain time.
4. Such declarations shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the parties to the Statute and to the Registrar of the Court.
5. Declarations made under Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and which are still in force shall be deemed, as between the parties to the present Statute, to be acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice for the period which they still have to run and in accordance with their terms.
6. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court.

In an article posted when this matter first arose before the ICJ, the Israeli government stated that it will cooperate with the proceedings, although not necessarily abide by the court's decision, which is advisory in this case.

There seems, therefore, little merit to the argument that Israel has not consented to have the court hear the matter.

As for the fourth objection, that is exactly the matter at hand. Certainly, no state should have the right to unilaterally interpret the Geneva Convention to its own liking. While Israel has the right to defend herself, she nevertheless must respect the rights of the Palestinian people as she does. The question before the court has less to do with whether Israel has the right to build a wall -- no doubt she does -- but whether she has the right to build the wall in the place where it is being constructed.

As a practical point, no argument for the wall has persuaded me that a wall built on the Green Line would be any less effective in preventing terrorists from entering Israel than one constructed several kilometers inside Palestinian Territory. Few would dispute Israel's right to construct a wall on the Green Line.

As for the legal points, I will be quite interested to hear what the court has to say on the matter. It's jurisdiction covers any question of international law. We certainly have one here.

[JohnLocke]

4. "Few would dispute Israel's right to construct a wall on the Green Line"?

Bluesoul, Resistance?

[bluesoul]

5. Nope

I wouldn't dispute it as long as they built it on their border. I wonder what led you to such conclusions. Next time rather ask then make assumptions...

[JohnLocke]

6. Did I make an assumption?

I asked a question.

[dudeness]

7. great post jack..

I do not wholly agree with one of your observations..condemation of the wall from the UN GA is IMO proper and as you state, will not invalidate the ICJ decision on the matter..the UN is obviously not a court of law and passes resolutions based on its charters and its consideration of humane and moral questions..the ICJ will take on the legal arguement and a decision handed down..the order in which these events have taken place does not IMO undermine the other..