Latest news with #internationallaw
Arab News
a day ago
- Business
- Arab News
Israel stands condemned, but why has it taken so long?
Since the EU's recent decision to initiate a review of Israel's compliance with its obligations under international law in the EU-Israel Association Agreement, and after the UK suspended trade talks with Israel and the leaders of Canada, France, and the UK issued a joint statement condemning the expansion of Israel's military operations in Gaza, hundreds of Palestinians have been killed in Gaza in Israeli military operations. In one incident, nine siblings of the same family were killed, and the war is still raging. So, forgive me if I find it difficult to get too excited about these latest diplomatic maneuvers to stop the senseless bloodshed, especially as this approach is still toothless, with no work on any time frame for introducing tangible measures. It is also the case that the argument 'better late than never' hardly holds water. Yes, if those baby-steps are the start of a concerted international effort to bring the war to an end, they will become immensely valuable, but there is much doubt about how effective they will be — and if they are not, what those countries intend to do. There is also the painful and lingering question: What has taken them so long? After all, every single day of delay in stopping the war has resulted in the deaths of many dozens of people, sometimes up to 100 a day, most of them noncombatants. In late May, nine of the 10 children of Dr. Alaa Al-Najjar and her husband Dr. Hamid were killed in an Israeli airstrike while she was on duty in the Nasser medical hospital. Only Hamid and one of their children survived, although both were badly injured. How could anyone remain indifferent in the face of such a tragedy, and one that could have been avoided, had the terms of the ceasefire agreed in January been adhered to? This is just one case of an entire family or a large part of them being wiped out in this war. If this heartbreaking tragedy does not move the world sufficiently to ensure that the Israeli government stops this war, what will? All the alarm bells regarding how Israel would conduct the war in Gaza were ringing from the first week of the conflict. Without taking anything away from the genuine anger at what Hamas inflicted on Oct. 7, the wish for revenge, and not only against those who carried out the attack, but against the entire population of Gaza, was instantly apparent. The unsubstantiated claim that every person in Gaza was complicit in the massacre should have been a warning sign. Moreover, between a government that failed to defend its people with horrendous consequences and would not admit to that failure, and senior Cabinet ministers who harbor messianic fantasies of expelling the Palestinians from Gaza, annexing the Strip and rebuilding settlements there, the likelihood of a proportionate response was always close to nil. Hence, it should not have taken the EU, UK, and Canada 19 long and blood-soaked months to figure this out. Every single day of delay has resulted in the deaths of dozens of people. Yossi Mekelberg Part of the explanation for the lack of will on the part of those who have suddenly found their voice in the past week or two and described what some Israeli ministers are suggesting will be the next stage in the war in Gaza as 'extremist,' 'dangerous' and 'monstrous' is that their working assumption has been that only Washington can make a difference, and that at best they could only play a supporting role. This has been more a case of relinquishing responsibility and avoiding friction, with Israel particularly, in the hope that either the US would use its influence to end the war, or the conflict would just run its course. This has proved to be misguided. In the immediate aftermath of Oct. 7, most of the world, and with good reason, showed its support for Israel's collective pain and trauma. However, at the same time it was irresponsible and shortsighted to give an extreme right-wing government led by a populist leader who happens also to be on trial for corruption, and whose sole interest is political survival at any cost, a blank check to respond to the massacre. For Europe, including the UK, what happens in the region is consequential and can have an immediate impact, whether it affects energy security, trade routes, radicalization within their own societies, or threatens a refugee crisis. Notwithstanding Europe's declared commitment to ensure human rights, Brussels also underestimates the enormous economic, diplomatic, and social power it has over Israel, not to harm its security, but to do the exact opposite: to save the country from itself when it is being governed by a reckless government. Moreover, at least some European powers should feel a moral and historical obligation for being the root cause of this conflict and for letting it fester for so long. It is nothing short of shocking that only in the past two weeks have there been some signs of concerted effort in Europe, out of despair at being unable to talk any sense into the Israeli government, or to stop the war and allow adequate humanitarian aid to enter the enclave. The EU's top diplomat Kaja Kallas explained the reason for its review of the association agreement that gives Israel many economic and scientific advantages as being the 'catastrophic' situation in Gaza, with Israel 'potentially' in breach of its commitments to human rights in the agreement. In the UK Parliament, David Lammy, the foreign secretary, said that the suspension of trade talks was a response to both the prevention of humanitarian aid reaching Gaza, and Israel's intention, as stated by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, to 'cleanse' the enclave, with resident Palestinians 'being relocated to third countries.' And, out of character, Germany, which traditionally refrains from criticizing Israel, has felt that it can no longer stand on the sidelines, with its new Chancellor Friedrich Merz declaring that to cause such suffering to the civilian population 'can no longer be justified as a fight against Hamas terrorism.' Declarations and statements aside, reviewing agreements and suspending talks are not going to change Israel's course of action. At this juncture in the war, as it once more deploys massive forces on the border and inside Gaza, and with the government's ill intentions out in the open, Europe, the UK, and Canada will have to go beyond 'suspending' and 'reviewing.' If they do, it might also serve as a wake-up call for more Israelis to take to the streets and stop this murderous madness by its government.
The Guardian
a day ago
- General
- The Guardian
Israel's ‘violations' in Gaza make world more dangerous, Norway warns
Israel is setting a dangerous precedent for international human rights law violations in Gaza that is making the whole world more dangerous, Norway's international development minister has warned. Norway has played a historical role in the region, including by facilitating the Oslo peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians that led to a celebrated breakthrough deal in 1993. Last year it recognised the Palestinian state, one of a minority of European countries to do so. '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,' Åsmund Aukrust said. 'So for the Norwegian government it is very important to protest against this, to condemn this very clear violation.' In addition to contributing to the worsening humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, he said Israel's actions posed a global threat to other and future conflicts. '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.' GHF, the controversial Israeli and US-backed logistical group, started distributing food in Gaza this week. Amid chaotic scenes, Israeli forces said they fired 'warning shots' at a distribution centre. Gaza health officials said at least one civilian had been killed and 48 injured. A UN-backed assessment earlier this month found that the entire population of the Gaza Strip, approximately 2.1 million people, were at critical risk of famine, with half a million people categorised as in catastrophe. Aukrust said: '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.' However, he said it was not up to politicians to decide whether the term genocide applied to Gaza, saying that was a decision for the international court of justice. 'Genocide is the worst crime a country can do and the worst crime that politicians can do and this should not be polarised,' he said. However, he said Oslo would be keeping an 'open line' to all parties – including Hamas – for dialogue and promised that Norway would be 'there for the long run' to rebuild Gaza. '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.' The Norwegian oil fund, the world's largest sovereign wealth fund that operates under rules set by parliament, has so far blacklisted 11 companies for assisting Israel's occupation. Next week, the Norwegian parliament is expected to reject calls to stop the fund from investing in companies that sell products and services in the occupied Palestinian territories. Aukrust said decisions about the wealth fund were 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. Norway's decision to recognise the state of Palestine in May 2024 was 'to send out a message of hope,' said Aukrust. He urged people across Europe to 'continue to protest' and to keep their faith in politics. '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.'
The Guardian
2 days ago
- General
- The Guardian
Attorney general apologises for comparing Tories and Reform to Nazis
The attorney general has apologised for a 'clumsy' remark that compared Conservative and Reform calls to disregard international treaties and quit the European convention of human rights with the early days of Nazi Germany. In a speech on Thursday, Richard Hermer defended the government's commitment to abide by international law and likened those who wanted to ignore it to German jurists in the 1930s such as Carl Schmitt. His words came under attack from Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage. Badenoch, the Tory leader, accused Lord Hermer of 'starting from a position of self-loathing, where Britain is always wrong and everyone else is right' and demanded an apology. 'Our sovereignty is being eroded by out-of-date treaties and courts acting outside their jurisdiction,' Badenoch posted on X. 'Pointing this out does not make anyone a Nazi. Labour have embarrassed themselves again with this comparison.' On Friday, a spokesperson for the attorney general said he acknowledged that 'his choice of words was clumsy and regrets having used this reference' but added that he 'rejects the characterisation of his speech by the Conservatives'. '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,' the spokesperson said. Farage, the leader of Reform UK, has long campaigned for the UK to leave the ECHR. Badenoch said earlier this year that the UK may have to quit the convention and other international agreements if they stopped ministers from acting 'in our national interest'. Hermer said in his speech to the Royal United Services Institute: '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 chancellor of Germany in 1933. Schmitt was highly influential under the Nazis and wrote about sovereignty and the effective exercise of power without the constraint of legal norms. Hermer said the government's approach was 'a rejection of the siren song that can sadly now be heard in the Palace of Westminster, not to mention some sections of the media, that Britain abandon the constraints of international law in favour of raw power'. 'Let me be crystal clear: I do not question for a moment the good faith, let alone patriotism, of the pseudo-realists, but their arguments if ever adopted would provide succour to [Vladimir] Putin,' he said. In his same speech, Hermer argued that 'we must not stagnate in our approach to international rules' and 'must be ready to reform where necessary'.
Times
3 days ago
- General
- Times
Starmer's legal chief in Nazi jibe at anti-ECHR Tories and Reform
Sir Keir Starmer's chief legal officer has likened attempts by the Tories and Reform to pull Britain out of international courts to 1930s Nazi Germany. Lord Hermer, the attorney-general, said Britain 'must be ready to reform' international agreements such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) so that they retain 'democratic legitimacy'. But he categorised Kemi Badenoch's policy to 'disengage' from the ECHR and other international bodies if they no longer serve British interests as a 'pick and mix' approach similar to that pursued by Nazi Germany to ensure the power of the state trumped the law. Reform's policy at the last election was to leave the ECHR and the 'foreign' court in Strasbourg. Sources close to Hermer insisted he was not likening right-wing politicians to Nazis, pointing out that he said they were acting in 'good faith' and were 'patriots'. Hermer said in a speech to the Royal United Services Institute: '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 was a German political theorist who provided ideological justification to the Nazi regime and supported Hitler's move to bypass the German constitution and rule by decree in 1933. Hermer added: '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.' He said that while the government must respect and comply with international institutions, the law could not 'stand still and rest on its laurels'. Hermer added: 'International law cannot and must not replace politics. As we have shown time and again as a nation, from a position of respect and compliance . . . reform is possible and institutions can be reformed. We must be ready to reform where necessary.' Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, described Hermer's plan to reform the convention as 'fanciful' because it would require unanimity from all 46 signatories. He hit back at criticism of those who want to leave it, saying: 'It is appalling that Hermer would insinuate those who think we should leave the ECHR are like the Nazis. David Lammy tried that disgusting smear with Brexiteers and it didn't work for him. It won't work for Hermer either.' deportation of foreign criminals, including sex offenders. Hermer's speech signals a notable shift in his approach. He has previously been blamed for acting as a 'freeze on government' by taking a risk-averse approach to potential legal challenges. It also suggests that the government is prepared to go further to tweak the way in which domestic courts interpret Article 8 of the ECHR, which protects the right to a family and private life. • • Leaving the ECHR can become Badenoch's big cause This month ministers said that they would change the law to prevent judges blocking deportation of foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers. The move would constrain interpretation of Article 8 and more closely define who qualifies for protection and when. Cases in which Article 8 has been invoked include an Albanian jailed for running a cannabis factory who avoided deportation when judges ruled it would deprive his daughter of a 'male role model'. There is a growing appetite across the continent to consider changes to the convention to help tackle illegal immigration. Hermer's speech suggests the government is now willing to go further than reforms to Article 8. He also criticised international judges for overinterpreting agreements signed decades ago in different circumstances. 'States . . . did not give an open-ended licence for international rules to be ever more expansively interpreted or for institutions to adopt a position of blindness or indifference to public sentiment,' he said. 'As progressive realists we recognise that international law cannot stand still.' A source close to Hermer said: 'The attorney-general sees those on the other side of this debate as patriots acting in good faith — but deeply misguided because ripping up international law will only help those who want a lawless world like Vladimir Putin. He is the son of a former Conservative councillor, who sees this as nothing but a good-faith argument in the British family.'
Al Bawaba
6 days ago
- Politics
- Al Bawaba
Inside International Justice: GU-Q Students Experience The Hague Firsthand
In a pioneering experiential learning course offered by Georgetown University in Qatar (GU-Q), twelve students recently traveled to The Hague, Netherlands, known as a hub of global law, to explore international justice up close. The new course, 'The Hague, International Law, and Justice: Institutions, Civil Society and Academia,' was developed and led by Dr. Noha Aboueldahab, Assistant Professor of International Law, and brought students face-to-face with institutions at the core of global law and rising senior Bayan Kayali, who is majoring in International Politics, the trip was an important chance to see the inner workings of the international legal system in action. 'I gained invaluable insights about international law and justice that went far beyond what can be taught in a lecture hall,' she shared. Aspiring lawyer Justin Pacer, from the Class of 2026, agreed, saying: 'It was truly one of the most formative academic experiences I've had.' Over the span of seven days, students visited 13 institutions and engaged with nearly 25 professionals and academics from bodies such as the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and the UN Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. The course also included meetings with Dutch diplomats, legal advocates, and faculty from partner several students, the trip was their last chance to gain real-world experience before graduation. 'I'm so grateful for the chance to learn from so many amazing practitioners, it was the perfect way to wrap up my undergrad journey,' shared International History major Natali Fanik. 'What this trip gave me was a deeply human connection to the material. Studying human rights litigation in theory doesn't capture what sitting with someone who spends every day trying to make it work in impossible circumstances.'Her classmate Areesha Fatima, who studied International Economics with a minor in Justice and Peace Studies reiterated how meaningful this experience was, saying: 'It was easily one of the most enriching experiences I have had at Georgetown. Standing inside the institutions I have studied for years and speaking with the people who run them made me realize that a career in international justice is not just a distant dream. It helped me to envision my own place in these institutions and I can't think of a better way to end my undergraduate degree."The students' thoughtful engagement left a lasting impression on their hosts, including Senior Public Prosecutor Jolanda de Boer from the Netherlands National Public Prosecutors' Office, who commented: 'The questions the students asked… were proof of their great commitment to and knowledge of international law. I was genuinely impressed.'The Embassy of the Netherlands to Qatar also played a critical role in the success of the trip, providing suggestions and connections on the ground, including Ambassador Ferdinand Lahnstein, and Ilyaas Sherally, former head of political affairs at the embassy. 'It was a pleasure to support such a meaningful visit and a privilege to engage with such driven and sharp students. In times as unsettling and troubling as these, not least with the man-made catastrophe in Gaza, the importance of International Law and Justice cannot be overstated,' commented Sherally.'No words can adequately describe the thrill of teaching this new experiential learning course,' said Dr. Aboueldahab, thanking her colleagues and trip co-organizers Angela Marongiu and Dr. Rowan Ellis. 'I'm deeply grateful to all those who took the time out of their busy schedules to engage, and especially to the amazing students who made this course special with their critical and constructive reflections.' Students shared those reflections in final assignments submitted at the end of class, such as this excerpt from Justin Pacer's ePortfolio. 'I leave this trip with a much deeper sense of responsibility, empathy, and understanding. A responsibility to not just critique from a distance, but to engage. A responsibility to carry forward the labor of those who are working, often unseen, to move justice forward. And most of all, a responsibility to give back. To use what I've learned not just to write better papers, but to stand for something.' Now celebrating two decades in Qatar, this course is a powerful example of GU-Q's commitment to bridging classroom theory with real-world insight—equipping students with firsthand exposure to the complexities of global justice. © 2000 - 2025 Al Bawaba ( Signal PressWire is the world's largest independent Middle East PR distribution service.
