| Topic: | Re:Re:Philippe Sands on International Law - a very relevant lecture | |
| Posted by: | Steven Rose | |
| Date/Time: | 09/03/26 21:48:00 |
| Thanks for the references, Jonathan. My concern about Philippe Sands' lecture was not so much about his unqualified support for the European Convention on Human Rights (though I think he glosses over some of the difficulties that have arisen from extreme interpretations of the Convention in respect of illegal migrants and foreign criminals) but about his set view of international law as an agreed set of rules against which nations and their leaders can be judged. No one disputes that the perpetrators of egregious crimes like genocide and child abduction should be punished. But the law surrounding wars of aggression, for example, is far less clear. The UN Charter basically condemns war as an instrument of foreign policy except in two circumstances: a war in self-defence or a war authorised by the Security Council. The second exception is frankly laughable. It implies that a war is only legal if it is endorsed by a body including Russia and China, two of the worst international offenders. The first exception is also fraught with difficulty simply because one man's war of aggression is another's war of self defence. This can be seen in the context of the current situation in Iran. The Attorney General apparently told the Prime Minister that the attack by America and Israel on Iran is illegal, being a war of unprovoked aggression. And a number of people, including Ed Davey, Zack Polanski, and probably Philippe Sands and most of the audience at his lecture, would agree with Lord Hermer's opinion. But I am sure that Benjamin Netanyahu and a majority of Israelis would not see it that way. From their point of view Iran is a country of 90 million which has never recognised Israel's right to exist, which has consistently claimed that the 'Zionist entity' should be wiped off the map, which has sponsored terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis to attack Israel, which has obtained ballistic missiles and which is trying to develop a nuclear capability. As far as they are concerned the attack on Iran is a preemptive strike. Their answer to the bien pensant critics at Philippe Sands' lecture would be, 'Are we supposed to wait until Iran actually gets a nuclear bomb?' |