Latest news with #internationalLaw
Arab News
a day ago
- General
- Arab News
Norway warns Israel's actions in Gaza risk setting dangerous global precedent
LONDON: Israel's conduct in Gaza is undermining international law and fueling a wider global threat, Norway's international development minister has said, warning that the use of tactics such as blocking aid and targeting humanitarian groups could become a grim new norm in future conflicts. 'For the last one and a half years we have seen very low respect for international law in the war in Gaza and in recent months it is worse than ever before,' Asmund Aukrust said. 'So for the Norwegian government it is very important to protest against this, to condemn this very clear violation,' he added. Aukrust said that the crisis was not only deepening suffering in Gaza but eroding principles that protect civilians everywhere, The Guardian newspaper reported on Saturday. 'We are very concerned that there will be a new international standard where food is used as a weapon, where the UN is denied entrance to the war and conflict zone, and other NGOs are denied entrance,' he said. 'And Israel is building up something they call Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which is to militarise humanitarian aid.' The GHF, supported by Israel and the US, began food distribution in Gaza this week. Israeli forces said that they fired 'warning shots' at a center during chaotic scenes, while local health authorities reported one civilian killed and dozens injured. A UN-led review earlier this month found all 2.1 million residents of Gaza at critical risk of famine, with 500,000 already in catastrophic conditions. 'We are afraid and very concerned that this might be a new standard in international law and this will make the world a lot more dangerous to all of us,' Aukrust said. Asked whether Israel's actions amounted to genocide, Aukrust said that was a matter for international courts, not politicians. 'Genocide is the worst crime a country can do and the worst crime that politicians can do and this should not be polarized,' he said. He insisted that dialogue must remain open, even with groups such as Hamas, and stressed Norway's long-term commitment to Gaza's recovery. 'We have no limitation of who we are talking to. I would say the opposite. We would be happy to, and we want to, talk with those who are responsible, whether it is Israel, Hamas or others,' he said. 'Dialogue is the most important word when it comes to peacemaking and we want to have an open line with all countries, all groups that might have an influence here,' he added. Norway, which recognized the Palestinian state in May, has long played a mediating role in the region, including hosting the 1993 Oslo Accords. Aukrust said that recognition was meant 'to send out a message of hope.' The country's sovereign wealth fund, which is the world's largest, has already blacklisted 11 companies for aiding Israel's occupation, though Aukrust stressed decisions on investments are made by the bank, not politicians. 'The bank decides where they want to invest. What the politicians do is to decide the rules,' he said. The rules, he added, were 'very clear' that the fund should not invest in anything that contributed to a violation of international law. The Norwegian parliament is expected to vote next week against a proposal to block the fund from investing in firms operating in the occupied Palestinian territories. Aukrust urged people across Europe to keep up pressure and stay engaged, adding: 'As long as the war is going on, from the Norwegian government side we will all the time look into what more can we do. What new initiative can we take. How can we send an even clearer message to those who are responsible for this.'
Free Malaysia Today
a day ago
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Far-right Israeli minister announces creation of 22 West Bank settlements
Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered illegal under international law. (EPA Images pic) JERUSALEM : Far-right Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich announced today the creation in the occupied West Bank of 22 new settlements, which are considered illegal under international law. 'We have made a historic decision for the development of settlements: 22 new communities in Judea and Samaria, renewing settlement in the north of Samaria, and reinforcing the eastern axis of the State of Israel,' the minister said on X, using the Israeli term for the West Bank, which it has occupied since 1967. 'Next step: sovereignty!' he added. In a statement on Telegram, the Likud party of prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the move a 'once-in-a-generation decision', saying the initiative had been led by Smotrich and defence minister Israel Katz and approved by the security cabinet. 'The decision also includes the establishment of four communities along the eastern border with Jordan, as part of strengthening Israel's eastern backbone, national security and strategic grip on the area,' it said. The party published a map showing the 22 sites spread across the territory. Israeli settlements in the West Bank are condemned by the United Nations as one of the main obstacles to a lasting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. The announcement comes ahead of an international conference to be led by France and Saudi Arabia at UN headquarters in New York next month, which is meant to resurrect the idea of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It also comes after US envoy Steve Witkoff said yesterday he had 'very good feelings' about the prospects for a Gaza ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, adding that he expected to send out a new proposal imminently.
The Independent
2 days ago
- General
- The Independent
Lord Hermer ‘regrets' comparing Reform and Tories' policy to Nazi Germany
The Attorney General has expressed regret over his remarks comparing calls for the UK to withdraw from international courts to 1930s Germany. In a statement, Lord Richard Hermer's spokesperson said that he acknowledged his "choice of words was clumsy" and 'regrets' them, but rejected "the characterisation of his speech by the Conservatives". Lord Hermer faced backlash for a speech on Thursday in which he criticised politicians who argued that Britain "abandons the constraints of international law in favour of raw power". Arguing that similar claims had been made "in the early 1930s by 'realist' jurists in Germany", Lord Hermer added that abandoning international law would only "give succour to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin". He also said that because of what happened "in 1933, far-sighted individuals rebuilt and transformed the institutions of international law". That was the year that Adolf Hitler became German chancellor. The speech prompted Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, who has suggested the UK would have to leave the ECHR if it stops the country from doing 'what is right', to accuse Lord Hermer of 'starting from a position of self loathing, where Britain is always wrong and everyone else is right'. In a post on social media, she said: 'The fact is laws go bad and need changing, institutions get corrupted. 'Our sovereignty is being eroded by out-of-date treaties and courts acting outside their jurisdiction. 'Pointing this out does not make anyone a Nazi. Labour have embarrassed themselves again with this comparison and unless the Prime Minister demands a retraction from his Attorney General, we can only assume these slurs reflect Keir Starmer's own view.' Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has said he would get rid of the ECHR, and told ITV in April that 'we have to get back the ability to decide, can we really control our borders'. Lord Hermer's spokesman said: 'The Attorney General gave a speech defending international law which underpins our security, protects against threats from aggressive states like Russia and helps tackle organised immigration crime. 'He rejects the characterisation of his speech by the Conservatives. He acknowledges though that his choice of words was clumsy and regrets having used this reference.' In his same speech to the Royal United Services Institute on Thursday, the Attorney General said 'we must not stagnate in our approach to international rules' and that officials should 'look to apply and adapt existing obligations to address new situations'. 'We must be ready to reform where necessary,' he added.
BBC News
2 days ago
- General
- BBC News
Minister regrets 'clumsy' reference to Nazi Germany in speech
The attorney general has said he regrets "clumsy" remarks in which he compared calls for the UK to depart from international law and arguments made in 1930s a speech on Thursday, Lord Hermer criticised politicians who argue the UK should abandon "the constraints of international law in favour of raw power".He said similar claims had been made by legal theorists in Germany in the years before the Nazis came to leader Kemi Badenoch accused him of "calling people who disagree with him Nazis," and urged the prime minister to sack him. A spokesperson for Lord Hermer said he rejected "the characterisation of his speech by the Conservatives".But they added the Labour peer "acknowledges though that his choice of words was clumsy and regrets having used this reference".They added that the speech was aimed at "defending international law which underpins our security, protects against threats from aggressive states like Russia and helps tackle organised immigration crime".In a speech at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, Lord Hermer said the Labour government wanted to combine a "pragmatic approach to the UK's national interests with a principled commitment to a rules-based international order".He said the approach was "a rejection of the siren song that can sadly now be heard in the Palace of Westminster, and in some spectrums of the media, that Britain abandons the constraints of international law in favour of raw power".Lord Hermer added: "This is not a new song."The claim that international law is fine as far as it goes, but can be put aside when conditions change, is a claim that was made in the early 1930s by 'realist' jurists in Germany, most notably Carl Schmitt, whose central thesis was in essence the claim that state power is all that counts, not law."Because of the experience of what followed in 1933, far-sighted individuals rebuilt and transformed the institutions of international law, as well as internal constitutional law."Adolf Hitler became German chancellor in Schmitt, a German legal scholar, was a supporter of the Nazi Party who sought to justify Hitler's policies in his writings on legal and political theory. 'Appalling judgement' The Conservatives and Reform UK have been critical of some elements of international law and the courts that enforce example, some politicians from these parties have called for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), an international treaty which sets out the rights and freedoms people are entitled to in signatory countries, including the of the ECHR say it hampers the UK's ability to deal with migration issues, including deporting people who cross the English Channel on small who has previously suggested the UK would have to leave the ECHR if it stops the country from doing "what is right", said Lord Hermer had shown "appalling judgement" in his speech."Now he's calling people who disagree with him Nazis," she added."This isn't just embarrassing, it's dangerous. Hermer doesn't understand government."If Keir Starmer had any backbone, he'd sack him."Reform UK's deputy leader Richard Tice said Lord Hermer should apologise."If anyone on the right of politics used his language, there would be outrage," Tice posted on social media."He has shown himself as unfit to be attorney general."
The Independent
2 days ago
- General
- The Independent
Oh dear, m'lud: It's never a good idea to call people Nazis if they are not Nazis
Godwin's Law states that, as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 100 per cent. A corollary to the law is that the first person to mention the Nazis loses the argument. So it is surprising that Richard Hermer, the attorney general, should make that mistake. He said in a lecture on Thursday: 'The claim that international law is fine as far as it goes, but can be put aside when the conditions change, is a claim that was made in the early 1930s by 'realist' jurists in Germany – most notably Carl Schmitt, whose central thesis was in essence the claim that state power is all that counts.' Schmitt supported Hitler's rule by decree in 1933, bypassing the German constitution. Hermer went on: 'Our approach is a rejection of the siren song, that can sadly now be heard in the Palace of Westminster, not to mention the press, that Britain abandon the constraints of international law in favour of raw power.' Oops. He referred in his lecture to Kemi Badenoch's plan to 'disengage' from the European Court of Human Rights if necessary to protect British interests, and made it clear that this was part of the 'pick and mix' approach that he was condemning. The backpedalling was almost immediate. Sources 'close to' Lord Hermer insisted that he was not likening Badenoch or Nigel Farage to Nazis, and pointed out that he also said in the lecture that those who advocated repudiating treaties were 'patriots' who were doing so in 'good faith'. A spokesperson for Lord Hermer has now also issued a statement, apologising for his 'clumsy' choice of words. Too late. Another corollary of Godwin's Law – named in 1990 after Mike Godwin, an American lawyer who took part in Usenet newsgroup discussions in the early days of the internet – is that, once made, a comparison to the Nazis is difficult to unmake. The significance of Hermer's blooper is twofold. One is that he is like the Ghost of Starmer Past, a reminder that the prime minister was a human rights barrister too before before he was captured by Morgan McSweeney, his chief of staff, who reprogrammed him according to the overriding need to win votes. The other is that Hermer, as the government's chief legal adviser, in effect holds a veto on the home secretary's review of the application of human rights law. Yvette Cooper said in March that the government was reviewing the way the European Convention on Human Rights – including Article 8, the right to family life – is applied, 'to make sure that the immigration and asylum system works effectively in the way that parliament intended it to and make sure that there is a proper sense of control in the system'. This review is part of the emerging consensus around Europe that human rights law needs to be reformed. Indeed, Hermer is part of that consensus, saying in his lecture that Britain 'must be ready to reform' international agreements such as the European Convention on Human Rights so that they retain 'democratic legitimacy'. Nine EU leaders, led by the prime ministers of Italy and Denmark, published an open letter last week protesting that the court's interpretation of the convention 'has, in some cases, limited our ability to make political decisions in our own democracies'. They said: 'We have seen, for example, cases concerning the expulsion of criminal foreign nationals where the interpretation of the convention has resulted in the protection of the wrong people and posed too many limitations on the states' ability to decide whom to expel from their territories.' So Badenoch and Farage may be pushing at a door that is already opening. Farage advocates withdrawing from the European Court regardless, while Badenoch says that she would be prepared to withdraw from the European Court if it, and the application of convention rights by British courts, cannot be reformed. Rishi Sunak said the same. Even Jack Straw, the Labour former home secretary, asked in a letter to The Times two months ago: 'What utility is there in the UK being bound any more into the Strasbourg court? Not much, is my answer.' He said convention rights are 'safe enough' being enforced by British courts. This is an argument that the reformers are winning. It seems not only legitimate to keep open the option of withdrawing from the European Court, but to make good tactical sense, bringing pressure to bear on the Council of Europe that oversees it. The case for sensible reform risks being destroyed by Hermer's hyperbole about 1930s Germany. And the political argument against Farage is weakened by comparing his policy, however indirectly, to that of the Nazis. The prime minister should exorcise the unhelpful ghost of his past.
