| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply | |
| Posted by: | Jonathan Callaway | |
| Date/Time: | 08/03/26 10:49:00 |
| I'm glad you tuned in, Steven. I thought he was very careful to avoid directly political statements. If he overtly criticised certain parties it was because of their actions as seen in the light of international law. Obviously he opposes those who would do away with our membership of the ECHR, for example, a policy pursued by both the Tories and Reform. The Chagossians are split - some oppose, some support the draft treaty. If the rule of law and an international rules-based system have any meaning left, then of course it is the judges who will get to decide specific cases. And they, as in any other court, can only deal with the facts as presented to them. Some countries do not engage with the ICC for example, so if cases are brought against them they remain either undefended or simply criticised and ignored from afar. International law is on the defensive in today's world and that is no doubt why he tries to articulate a powerful defence. The major powers ignore it when it suits them. Maybe that has always been the case but what is the solution? Do you dismantle the whole apparatus and replace it with pure might-is-right power politics, as the US administration clearly prefers, or do you try to devise a viable alternative, if it can be found and agreed on? I'm not a lawyer but I prefer the current system, imperfect as it obviously is - because the alternative looks like the impunity and immunity he argues against. |