International Kangaroo Court of Justice

Politics International Politics
1

Well,

We’ve debated the legitimacy of the ICJ, and I and others have raised various concerns that the ICJ would be more of a kangaroo court than a fair and unbiased tribunal.

But others have argued that the ICJ will be a model of international fairness and an enforcer of international justice.

Well, let’s look at the recent case and ICJ decision regarding Israel’s wall:

Well, that alleviates all of my fears that the ICJ will be politically motivated. I wonder why I ever doubted the objectivity and fairness of the ICJ.

[quote]The court’s main business was to order Israel to tear down the security fence separating Israelis from Palestinians. The fence is only one-quarter built, and yet it has already resulted in an astonishing reduction in suicide attacks in Israel. In the past four months, two Israelis have died in suicide attacks, compared with 166 killed in the same time frame at the height of the terrorism.

But what are 164 dead Jews to this court? Israel finally finds a way to stop terrorism, and 14 eminences sitting in The Hague rule it illegal – in a 64-page opinion in which the word terrorism appears not once (except when citing Israeli claims). [/quote]

So, in a case regarding a wall erected to stem Palestinian terrorism, the ICJ never used the word “terrorism” except when referring to Israeli claims. Hmmm… yes, this is an unbiased, non-politically motivated tribunal if I’ve ever seen one.

Hypocrisy! Ouch! Who still believes in the legitimacy of this “court”?

[quote]Moreover, the court had no jurisdiction to take this case. It is a court of arbitration, which requires the consent of both parties. The Israelis, knowing the deck was stacked, refused to give it. Not only did the United States declare this issue outside the boundaries of this court, so did the European Union and Russia, hardly Zionist agents. The court went ahead nonetheless, betraying its prejudice in its very diction.
[/quote]

Whaooo! So much for adequate procedural safeguards. Should I be confident in the ability or, more importantly, the willingness of this court to apply basic notions of due process in all cases?

Broke out? As if three years after the Holocaust and almost entirely without weapons, a tiny country of 600,000 Jews had decided to make war on five Arab states with nearly 30 million people.[/quote]

No political agenda to be concered about with this court, eh?

Disgraceful, IMO.

So, who still believes the ICJ is anything more than a kangaroo court?

2

Last week’s news TM…stay up to date.

3

The case (news) was last week’s. But, the issue remains as current as ever, if not even more so, now that we have seen the true nature of the ICJ.

4

I think you ought to have quoted this bit too TMT[quote]It must be noted that one of the signatories of this attempt to force Israel to tear down its most effective means of preventing the slaughter of innocent Jews was the judge from Germany. The work continues.
[/quote]

What do you think Mr. Krauthammer means by that? I think I will try to look at the actuall judgement before I make any comment. However it seems to me that relying on Mr. Krauthammer for an objective summary would be akin to relying on Mr. Arrafat for a similar service.

5

[quote=“butcher boy”]I think you ought to have quoted this bit too TMT[quote]It must be noted that one of the signatories of this attempt to force Israel to tear down its most effective means of preventing the slaughter of innocent Jews was the judge from Germany. The work continues.
[/quote][/quote]

I did.

I think Krauthammer was taking a shot at germany (or at least that particular judge).

But, I wouldn’t so easily dismiss his commentary nor would I compare relying on his commentary to reliance on Arafat’s commentary re the same issue.

But, I will look for the decision… its 64 pages long…

6

It was the bit at the end of the quote that was worrying. Did he mean ‘work on the wall/fence continues’ or did he mean ‘work on the final solution’ continues? It just seemed he was angling at the double meaning. Maybe I’m reading to much into it.

7

I think he probably means that the work of getting all the Germans on the same page regarding Germany’s special obligation to protecting the Jews. I guess??? There are still some Germans who deny that the Holocaust happened.

8

Not just Germans…unfortunately there are more who deny this in the US, France, Britain etc.

Doesn’t mean Sharon and preceding and no doubt successive Israeli governments can keep using the Holocaust as a blanket excuse to hide behind and justify their own excesses. Say “ghetto” with reference to Palestinians and there is silence in Washington. Say “ghetto” with reference to Jews and there is outrage. Hypocrisy.

9

[quote]The United Nations General Assembly held an emergency meeting Friday to debate an Arab-sponsored draft resolution demanding that Israel comply with an advisory ruling by the World Court to stop construction of a security barrier on land in the occupied West Bank. Israeli and Palestinian representatives traded barbed comments during the discussion.

The International Court of Justice issued a non-binding opinion July 9th calling Israel’s construction of a 595 kilometer security fence a violation of international law because it crosses into West Bank territory. The Court advisory also called on the United Nations to take steps to halt the construction of the barrier. The World Court took up the issue at the request of the General Assembly. Now the General Assembly is debating a Palestinian draft resolution asking the General Assembly to reaffirm “the illegality of any territorial acquisition resulting from the use of threat or force” and to demand that Israel comply with the ruling.

The resolution was introduced by Arab nations and members of the non-aligned movement. A vote is not expected before next Monday as Arab sponsors of the resolution make modifications to win the support of the European Union. Arab diplomats have been intensely lobbying the 25 European Union members for support. But E.U. diplomats have been critical of the draft’s failure to mention Israel’s legitimate security concerns.

The United States opposes the World Court ruling. U.S. Ambassador John Danforth says that the judiciary is not the proper place to work out what is essentially a political process. And he says the United States will vote against the resolution.[/quote]

Tht’s exactly right. The courts are not appropriate for solving political problems… yet, the ICJ is already being used as a tool to obtain political gains, despite the assurances that it would not be prone to political abuse.

10

Not just Germans…unfortunately there are more who deny this in the US, France, Britain etc.[/quote]

Yes, that’s right. I was merely referring to Kruathhammer’s statement.

11

Attempts are made everywhere, in every country, by governments and politicians to gain political advantage through the court system by rulings which set a precedent leading to changes in the constitution which serve one party over another. The issue is the credibility of the court in question, its impartiality and its make up. A ruling that does not suit one party does not necessarily imply that that court itself is fundamentally flawed. The mechanics of setting up an international court need to be clarified and procedures put in place. It seems that the US and Israel do not like the ICJ because the ruling on ‘the wall’ was unsatisfactory to them. Had it gone the other way, Isarael and the US wouldn’t be squealing about the jurisdiction of the ICJ; at the least they would remain silent, at the most they would be citing it as a justification of their position. Ergo, they would in a way be seeking political advantage, whether they took active participation in the proceedings or not.

12

See this seems to be at odds with the Krauthammer version of the ruling. If the VOA report has it right then Israel still has every right to build a wall/barrier/fence, as long as it is on Israeli land, and not occupied territory. Again, need to track down the actual ruling and see what it actually says.

13

That this in fact happens does not make it appropriate.

I disagree. Courts should not be used, regardless of how impartial or fair they may be, to solve political problems.

Agreed, in a case where the issue is a proper matter for the judiciary. But, political issues are not, IMO, proper matters for the judiciary.

That is precisely what the US has been saying, and critics of the US stance have assured us that the procedural safeguards of the ICJ are already adequate. It appears they are not.

I don’t think it fair to say that. In fact, the US has been a vocal critic of the ICJ, citing precisely these procedural deficiencies in the ICJ. Had the US never complained about the lack of procedural safeguards in the ICJ, you might have a point. But the present case supports the US claims regarding the flaws in the ICJ… the US claims do not indicate anything else (unless you wish to speculate).

No. The US cited these concerns long ago. The ICJ and its supporters responded that the ICJ has adequate procedural safeguards. Now, we see that the ICJ is willing to rule on a political issue even when it lacks jurisdiction over the matter.

Spin it anyway you like… but, when the ICJ ignores its own jurisdictional limitations to try a political case… only one conclusion can be reached. Its the conclusion that the US reached long ago.

A court that flouts its own procedural rules cannot, under any notion of the definition, be deemed “fair”.

14

See this seems to be at odds with the Krauthammer version of the ruling. If the VOA report has it right then Israel still has every right to build a wall/barrier/fence, as long as it is on Israeli land, and not occupied territory. Again, need to track down the actual ruling and see what it actually says.[/quote]

I saw that too. But, until we see the entire text, it could be simply that Krauthammer was only focusing on one of the Court’s decisions/findings. It could be that the Court cited several reasons for the violation. I dunno.

15

This is a good example why mixing religious faith and nationalism is such poison for the human spirit.

It creates moral blindspots and double standards of breath-taking proportions in otherwise rational minds.

Israel has the right to defend itself by building a wall on its territory. To ignore the fact that it’s in the process snaking its wall onto Palestinian territory in a naked land and resources grab is an unconscionable moral hypocrisy though.

To call this a mere ‘political issue’ makes a mockery of (valid) arguments against Syria and Iraq encroaching the territory of their neighbors and ethnic minorities.

In the immortal words of George Washington in his farewell address to the nation in 1796:

“. . . a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.”

16

this is the link for the actual ruling if anyone is interested
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm

17

The Wall is clearly illegal, no question, and the ICJ gave the correct ruling. The fact that it has allegedly reduced terrorism (no evidence from either side has been offered, just claims) is not relevant to the legality of the Wall. It would, for example, reduce the chance of a burglary to have a flamethrower in my house that randomly shot gouts of flame around my yard, but it would also be illegal.

The truth is that Krauthammer has gotten hold of the wrong end of the issue. He should not be attacking the ruling, which is entirely correct by all standards of international law. Under the law Israel cannot arrogate that territory to itself, nor can it move its own settlers into the West Bank. The effectiveness of the wall in preventing Palestinian attacks is simply not an issue. Rather, he should be asking why, with so many different cases and so many different crimes, (the Court’s docket is here) the Court has chosen to send down a ruling on this particular topic. The ideological bent of the court is nicely illustrated by the fact that it ruled in less than a year on the Wall, but it has been utterly silent on the invasion and destruction of Tibet.

Vorkosigan

18

[quote=“Vorkosigan”] The fact that it has allegedly reduced terrorism (no evidence from either side has been offered, just claims) is not relevant to the legality of the Wall. It would, for example, reduce the chance of a burglary to have a flamethrower in my house that randomly shot gouts of flame around my yard, but it would also be illegal.

[/quote]
Completely agree. On August 13th 1961, someone put up a wall in some German town and there was a bit of a stir. As politically, the people who erected it were not supported by the US some leader went over there and said in front of it that it was not good. But it was effective in stopping people from crossing over and visiting their rellies on the other side. Can’t see (apart from his inability to pronounce it properly) Bush going over and stating “Ich bin ein Westbanker”. Why? because the people who built it are supported by the US. More double standards applied where politics overrides the legality of the wall. The German one was even built on the “territory” of the people who built it, the Israeli one clearly isn’t in its entirety. Depends on which side of the fence one sits, I suppose.

19

Several of you have made good arguments that the wall is illegal in as much as it encroaches on Palestinian land. I have no opposition to such claim.

However, my purpose in starting this thread is not to discus the substantive merits of this particular case… but rather to criticize the court for its disregard for its own supposed procedural rules.

The court apparently did not have jurisdiction over this issue, yet went ahead and tried it against the urgings of several governments. Moreover, this case was obviously politically motivated.