| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Reply | |
| Posted by: | Steven Rose | |
| Date/Time: | 07/03/26 23:07:00 |
| I watched Philippe Sands’ lecture upon your recommendation, Jonathan, but I was not particularly impressed. Here are some observations: 1) The whole event was clearly political with overt criticism of Trump, Netanyahu and the Conservatives. 2) In his account of the Chagos agreement, Sands somewhat disingenuously omitted to mention that the Chagossians themselves are opposed to the deal. 3) Sands, like many of his colleagues (e.g. Lord Hermes, Keir Starmer) appears to believe, not so much in the rule of law as the rule of lawyers and judges, whose opinions he elevates into divine edicts. For example, in his discussion of the European Convention on Human Rights, which he said had been drafted by British lawyers, he failed to explain that the judges of the European Court have recently interpreted the Convention in ways never envisaged by the original signatories and sometimes at variance with the will of democratically elected governments. 4) He appears to regard international law as an agreed set of rules. Unfortunately this is by no means the case. Yes, everyone agrees that certain crimes such as genocide, the deliberate targeting of civilians, the use of rape as a weapon of war and so on, are evil and must be punished. But even for these crimes justice is often victors’ justice. He referred to the Nuremberg trials where the Nazi leaders were rightly condemned for their terrible crimes. But what about the fact that around half a million German civilians were killed in Allied air raids and up to a million German women were raped by Soviet troops, crimes which the judges of Nuremberg never considered. However in respect of other crimes under international law, such as waging a war of aggression, there is little agreement at all. Sands appears to believe that Trump and Netanyahu should be tried at the ICC for the attack on Iran. Many people would disagree with that, not least thousands of Iranians in Teheran. |