| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine |
| 'Lawfare' : the ICJ rules in favor of terrorism |
| 2004-07-17 |
| Maj. Michael Newton, a military lawyer who teaches at West Point, coined a new term earlier this year: "lawfare." It is the pursuit of strategic aims, the traditional domain of warfare, through aggressive legal maneuvers. Last Friday's decision by the International Court of Justice holding Israel's security fence in violation of international law is another milestone in the onward march of lawfare. The ICJ has now confirmed that lawfare and warfare can be pursued simultaneously...Most of the court's reasoning, based on arguments advanced by British barristers, is superficially plausible--so long as one ignores the actual political context of the dispute. Perhaps the Children's Rights Convention or the Fourth Geneva Convention do provide arguments against disrupting the free movement of innocent Palestinians... In effect, the ICJ now claims that countries beset by terrorism must ignore terror threats and focus on the court's priorities. It is a dangerous precedent for the U.S., which has often contended for interpretations of its rights, under international law, that a majority of U.N. members might dispute. To those who argue that the U.S. should join the new International Criminal Court, because that new court will be moderated in its rulings by the influence of European members, this ruling of an older U.N. court should be sobering.The ruling raises still broader questions about the U.N.'s capacity to contribute to any serious international effort against terrorism. Even U.N. judges, we now see, have other priorities. Long article. I cut and pasted a bit. Raises worrisome questions. |
| Posted by:rex |
| #3 Am I missing something here? Are the following two statements true: The UN is one of the sponsors/signatories of the 4-party Peace Plan? The sequencing of the Peace Plan is that Palestinians must put a stop to the security failures if further negotiations on the two state solution are to occur? If yes, then how, with the UN as a signatory to the peace plan, can the two positions reflected below be advocated? "...admonished that the nations of the world are obligated not to pressure Palestinians to abandon terrorism, but to pressure Israel to dismantle its security fence...." "The council had exercised this responsibility only a few weeks earlier, by endorsing a "road map to peace" which stipulated that ultimate borders...should be settled between the Palestinians and the Israelis in direct negotiations." Clarity: "The ICJ's ruling is likely to prove a genuine obstacle to the step-by-step bargaining process envisioned in the road map." |
| Posted by: jules 2 2004-07-17 10:37:39 AM |
| #2 Lawfare is a pretty good term. It is the method by which the agenda of the LLL has been advanced in this country over the last couple of decades, too. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-07-17 10:13:21 AM |
| #1 This is a must read! |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-07-17 2:23:23 AM |