Latest news with #MalcolmShaw
Telegraph
03-08-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Recognising Palestinian state would destabilise international law, Starmer told
Sir Keir Starmer has been warned that recognising a Palestinian state would 'destabilise' the international legal order. Malcolm Shaw KC, a leading lawyer, said that the recognition plan 'would create a troublesome precedent and could well challenge and ultimately destabilise an international system founded upon a common understanding of what it is to be a state'. The fresh legal opinion, seen by The Telegraph, was circulated to the Prime Minister, Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, and dozens of influential Labour MPs. It was commissioned by Lord Mendelsohn, the Labour peer, in response to Sir Keir's decision to recognise a State of Palestine in September unless Israel meets certain conditions. The warning comes after Hamas made it clear it will not disarm unless an independent Palestinian state is established. The militant group took the step of issuing a statement 'in response to media reports quoting US envoy Steve Witkoff, claiming [Hamas] has shown willingness to disarm'. It said: 'We reaffirm that resistance and its arms are a legitimate national and legal right as long as the occupation continues. 'This right is recognised by international laws and norms, and it cannot be relinquished except through the full restoration of our national rights - first and foremost, the establishment of an independent, fully sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.' Hamas added that Mr Witkoff's trip on Friday to a Gaza aid distribution site was 'designed to mislead public opinion, polish the image of the occupation, and provide it with political cover for its starvation campaign and continued systematic killing of defenceless children and civilians in the Gaza Strip'. Mr Shaw's legal opinion says the Prime Minister's plan to recognise the state of Palestine is 'premature and may have unintended consequences' and that it 'confuses and distorts' any attempt at a peaceful two-state solution. 'A prize for precipitating war' He describes Sir Keir's decision to make statehood dependent on the behaviour of Israel, a 'third country', as 'remarkable'. 'This is exceptional and, frankly, not in keeping with the tenor of the relevant international principles,' he wrote. 'Recognition at the current time will be seen as a prize for precipitating the war on Oct 7 2023 with its attendant rapes and massacres.' Mr Shaw also argues that the Palestinian territories 'do not currently satisfy' the criteria for a state. Some 40 peers warned this week that recognising Palestine in the process set out by the Prime Minister would be illegal. They included Lord Pannick KC and Lady Deech, both respected lawyers and patrons of UK Lawyers for Israel, an association of British lawyers who are supportive of Israel. Lord Hermer is understood to have disagreed with their arguments and dismissed their claim. But Mr Shaw's opinion could pile further pressure on the Government to reconsider its legal position with regards to recognition. He further argues that since both Israel and the Palestinian territories are still bound by the Oslo Accords, the agreement that remains the legal framework that governs the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, proper recognition at this time is not possible. Mr Shaw, who is the author of a standard legal textbook on international law, is currently representing Israel in its International Court of Justice (ICJ) case against South Africa, which argued that Israeli forces had committed genocidal acts in Gaza. While Sir Keir has always agreed to the principle of recognising a Palestinian state at some point, he was reluctant to do so until his surprise announcement this week. The Prime Minister appears to have been influenced by a number of factors, including the worsening starvation crisis in Gaza, pressure from international allies such as Emmanuel Macron, and increasingly vocal calls for immediate recognition from his own MPs. The setting up of a rival Left-wing political party under Jeremy Corbyn which calls for an independent Palestinian state may have also put pressure on Sir Keir to act. On Saturday, protesters from the activist group Youth Demand blocked roads in the Holland Park and King's Cross areas of London as they called for an immediate British trade embargo on Israel. On Thursday, Labour MPs supportive of Israel reportedly clashed with Jonathan Powell, Sir Keir's national security adviser, in a meeting about the recognition announcement.
Hindustan Times
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Interpreting the right of nations to self-defence
President Donald Trump has claimed credit for facilitating a tentative ceasefire in West Asia. However, the US's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities earlier had exacerbated a volatile situation in West Asia, stemming from the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. While the political and strategic repercussions of these strikes will be analysed, a critical question arises: Does the American attack violate international law? Let's explore this question on three levels. American strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities are legally suspect. (AFP) First, as per Article 51 of the UN Charter, States can use force in international relations as part of their inherent right to self-defence 'if an armed attack occurs'. Consequently, the use of force not aimed at repelling an ongoing armed attack is inexplicable under the right to self-defence. Since there has been no armed attack by Iran on the US, as per this interpretation, the actions of the US do not meet the criteria of Article 51 and are, therefore, illegal. Second, some scholars and States argue that interpreting the right to self-defence solely as a means to repel an ongoing armed attack is too restrictive. They believe this perspective fails to address the threats posed by terrorism and nuclear dangers that pervade the contemporary world. Hence, it is contended that countries should also be able to invoke the right to self-defence against armed attacks that have not yet occurred. However, this broader interpretation could be perilous, as it may allow States to justify the use of force against other countries under the pretext of self-defence for geopolitical motives or other reasons, potentially constituting acts of aggression. To prevent a broad interpretation of the right to self-defence in anticipation of an armed attack, it is argued that States must demonstrate the requirement of immediacy. This means that, for a State to justify using force against an armed attack that has not yet occurred, it needs to show that the attack is imminent or about to happen. In this sense, imminence has a temporal aspect. In such situations, States invoking self-defence should demonstrate that they had no time for deliberation and were compelled to use force in response to, as Malcolm Shaw argues, a threat that is 'reasonably and evidentially perceived to be imminent'. So, was an armed attack from Iran on the US imminent? Based on the publicly available evidence, it does not appear to be the case, which renders American strikes on Iran illegal. There is an additional dimension to the theory of immediacy. In the past, the US has attempted to broaden the definition of imminence by disconnecting it from the temporal aspect. As Dapo Akande and Thomas Liefländer put it, a State may use force if there is a highly probable and severe threat, even if that threat is not imminent in time, provided that the force used is necessary and proportionate, i.e., there would be no future opportunity to eliminate the threat. Assuming this legal argument is valid, the US would need to demonstrate that the nuclear threat from Iran was both highly probable and severe. This would be challenging to prove as Iran does not yet possess a nuclear weapon. There is also uncertainty about when Iran might acquire this capability, with estimates ranging from weeks to years, and these assessments have been discussed over several years. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Iranian nuclear threat is both highly probable and severe. Even in this case, it would still be arduous to justify the necessity of the American military strikes, as the US and Iran were engaged in negotiations regarding the nuclear issue. Therefore, the US had alternative methods available to address the nuclear threat, and the bombing of the nuclear facilities was not the last window of opportunity to prevent a nuclear attack in the future. Third, can the US justify this attack as an act of collective self-defence? It is important to remember that Article 51 recognises not only the inherent right of individual self-defence but also of collective self-defence. As Christopher Greenwood argues, the International Court of Justice, in the US v. Nicaragua case, established three elements to justify the right of collective self-defence. First, there must be a State that has been the victim of an armed attack. Second, this State must formally declare itself as a victim of that armed attack. Third, the victim State should request assistance from the State that seeks to justify its use of force under the right to collective self-defence. In this case, the US cannot justify the use of force against Iran under the principle of collective self-defence, as there has been no armed attack from Iran on Israel. Therefore, Israel is not a victim State in the current scenario that could seek assistance from the US. Furthermore, Israel's attacks on Iran on June 13, which Tel Aviv describes as pre-emptive strikes against Iran's perceived nuclear threats, are legally questionable. Some may argue that the conflict did not begin on June 13 of this year but instead on October 7, 2023, or even earlier, with attacks on Israel by terrorist groups like Hamas and the Houthis, which Iran patronises. However, this expansive interpretation risks blurring important lines in the conflict. Thus, no matter how one slices it, American strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities are legally suspect. These strikes raise gravely alarming questions about the double standards of powerful countries, in this case the US, in their respect for the already fragile rules-based international order. Prabhash Ranjan is professor and vice dean (research), Jindal Global Law School. The views expressed are personal.
Daily Mirror
15-06-2025
- Automotive
- Daily Mirror
Brits overpaying for petrol and diesel urged to try hack and save '7p per litre'
UK motorists may be overpaying for petrol and diesel without even realising it. However, an expert has revealed the two-second check he swears by - which could save you hundreds of pounds a year Swathes of Brits may be getting ripped off when refuelling their vehicles - but a simple hack could save them more than £100 every year. An experienced full-time HGV driver has revealed a practical method for cutting down on fuel expenses, after realising just how much petrol and diesel prices can fluctuate. In a conversation with experts at Number 1 Plates, Malcolm Shaw explained how an easy-to-use app called PetrolPrices is key in saving him a small fortune when filling his tank. PetrolPrices is a fuel price comparison app that displays a live map showing petrol and diesel prices submitted by real drivers across the UK. The real-time data allows users to quickly compare prices at nearby forecourts and identify where the cheapest fuel is available on any given day. "It's the first thing I check before a long day," Malcom said. "The difference between the most expensive and cheapest petrol station can be 5, 6, even 7p a litre — and that's just in the same postcode." He says he regularly notices significant savings by simply choosing a petrol station just a short distance from his usual stop. "The other day I saw unleaded at 154.9 at one place, and 147.9 literally around the corner," the pro added. "For a full tank, that's over £4.50 saved, no effort." To put these savings into perspective, the RAC Foundation estimates that the average UK petrol car has a tank size of around 55 litres. Most drivers refuel approximately every 10 to 14 days, which means roughly 30 full refuels a year. So If you save £4.50 every time you fill up, the total annual savings could be in the region of £135. For households with multiple cars or those who commute longer distances, the amount saved could be considerably higher. Malcolm's message is straightforward — if you're not using a fuel price comparison app like PetrolPrices, you're probably paying more than you need to for fuel without even realising it. He advises: "It takes seconds to check and could save you hundreds. I think every driver should have it." Fuel remains one of the largest monthly expenses for many UK households. Apps like PetrolPrices prove that a small change in your routine can make a meaningful difference to your finances. By simply taking a moment to compare prices, drivers can avoid overpaying and keep more money in their pockets. In the current climate, where every penny counts, Malcolm's advice shows how technology can empower drivers to make smarter choices. Whether you're driving a heavy goods vehicle or a family car, using tools like PetrolPrices is a practical way to reduce fuel costs with little extra effort.
