International Humanitarian Law

Contents:

    • Articles & Talks.
    • Blogs & Essays – NB these are set out and appear after the ‘Bibliography’ so please scroll down to find and read.

–   ‘250,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza over 9 month (12.07.2024).’

–   ‘Will a restatement of the International Rule of Law by BRICS + the SCO eventually form the legal bedrock of an evolving Eurasian Multi-Nodal World Order thereby displacing Neoliberalism & the International Liberal Rules Based Order?’

–  ‘Can Starmer Save Britain? Why Labour’s Sweeping Victory May Not Reverse the Country’s Decline.’

–  ‘Toward an International Cultural Heritage Court?’

–  ‘The wide range of potential cultural heritage claims/applications which have been/could be determined by the International Court of Justice – linked under International Law to peace & protection of the environment.’

–  ‘Should any group or organisation which lobbies members of Parliament on behalf of Israel be legally banned as an extremist group/organisation under the new legal definition of extremism?’

–   ‘How can the US lawfully continue to supply arms to a UN “black-listed” state which appears to have been classified & branded by the UN as being a de-facto “terrorist” state?’

–    ‘Ahead of an imminent attack on Rafah by Israel Gaza is now officially in a state of Famine.’

    ‘US State Department Official resigns over Gaza.’

–    ‘According to a leaked recording the British Government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public.’

   ‘Murder of unarmed civilians waving white flags + Concealing Murder by bulldozing their bodies into rubbish + Famine through deliberate starvation of an entire civilian population.’

–   ‘Envisioning Ethnic Cleansing & Genocide in Gaza as a real estate opportunity for Zionists? – For once I am speechless! – What do you conclude from the evidence about what Israel is doing & selling?

–  ‘Who is politically driving and financing the slaughter of Palestinians.’

  ‘Who are the Evangelical Chrisitan Zionists & what is their influence over US Foreign Policy?’

–   ‘Can Biden & Sunak prevent the slaughter of women & children in Rafah?’

–   ‘The escalating risk of nuclear war in Ukraine  – Do Biden, Macron & Sunak understand this?’

–    ‘Understanding Putin & Russia.’

–    ‘Moral force in Foreign Policy is not possible without visionary leadership tempered by realism.’

–   ‘Twin disasters for Biden in Ukraine & Gaza.’

–   ‘New Definition of Extremism in UK.’

–   ‘Is Zionism a form of white  colonial settler supremacy?

–   ‘Is the US preparing to quietly leave Ukraine?’

–   ‘Is pressure from within the US Foreign Policy establishment gathering momentum to rein in Israel and stop the haemorrhaging of American credibility?’

–  ‘5 questions MPs can ask to test the legal necessity of calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza so that Israel can comply with IHL.’

– ‘A violation of International Humanitarian Law can give rise to a private law remedy actionable in the English Court.’

– ‘Combatting the illicit trade is stolen antiquities is linked to global peace.’

– ‘Cultural Heritage Safe Zones.’

– ‘No Fly Zones.’

– ‘Are Principles of Humanity under International Humanitarian Law a diplomatic tool in mediating a peace process and agreement?’

  • Humanitarian & Transformative Mediation Resources.
  • Mediation of Peace Process and Agreement Resources.

Articles & Talks

Please note that links to Foreign Affairs articles are only available to view on my PC and are not accessible to visitors to the webiste. They are assembled here for my future research and writing.

How Israel And The West Use Propaganda For War And Genocide. It’s EVERYWHERE | Thomas Karat (youtube.com)

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: Can Diplomacy Bring Middle East Peace? (youtube.com)

Col. Karen Kwiatkowski: The FBI Is the Deep State (youtube.com)

U.S. Sends 2 Carrier Strike Groups While Iran REJECTS Calls to Stand Down (youtube.com)

Renowned Gaza Writer’s DEVASTATING Experience Of Genocide – w/. Ahmed Masoud (youtube.com)

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: What Does Netanyahu Want? (youtube.com)

Pepe Escobar : Will China Help the Palestinians? (youtube.com)

Putin: I Will Kick Ukraine Out w/Guest Host Larry Johnson (youtube.com)

Col. Jacques Baud: Israel on the Brink of Collapse? Ukraine’s Desperate Move (youtube.com)

The Undoing of Israel | Foreign Affairs

Ray McGovern : Ritter’s Courage, Israel’s Moral Crisis (youtube.com)

Scott Ritter: Why Israel Could Be Humiliated and Defeated by Iran or Hezbollah! (youtube.com)

Prof. John Mearsheimer : Will Russia and China Back Iran? – YouTube

Amb. Charles Freeman: Ritter, Ukraine, and Israel – #ScottRitter (youtube.com)

Who Caused the Ukraine War? – by John J. Mearsheimer (substack.com)

Prof. John Mearsheimer: The Israel Lobby – it’s POWER (youtube.com)

Scott Ritter : “They are marking me for death , and that’s something you don’t come back from” (youtube.com)

Blog & Essays

‘250,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza over 9 month (12.07.2024)’

As the new cohort of MP’s go on holiday for 2 months I invite them to reflect upon the following:

The Lancet (conservative estimate) = 186 000 (violent i.e. ‘direct’ deaths) + 10,000 under the rubble (a high proportion of which are likely to be babies & children). [Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential – The Lancet]

Professor John Mearsheimer, who is a graduate of West Point (Prof. John Mearsheimer: Ukraine Collapsing (youtube.com) & fast forward to 20:28)[Broadcast yesterday] estimates 250,000 deaths:

37,000 (violently) + 13 (under the rubble) = 50,000 [‘Direct Deaths’].

+

x 4 = total number of ‘Indirect Deaths’ e.g. from starvation, de-hydration, disease & lack of medical care (since Israel bombed every hospital in Gaza) = 200,000.

So, 50K (‘Direct Deaths’) + 200k ‘Indirect Deaths’ = 250,000 Palestinians dead.

Using the 2022 Gaza Strip population estimate of 2, 375 259, this would translate to 10.52% of the total population in the Gaza Strip.

Executed over a 9 month period

So on a straight line calculation (‘SLC’) = 1.16% of the total population in the Gaza Strip per month.

The current population roughly = 2,125,259.

In order to extrapolate as an SLC divide by 250,000 and multiply by 9 = 76 months from today.

So, as a SLC, it is statistically probable that the entire population of Gaza will cease to exist in 6.3 years, i.e. sometime in 2030.

Statistically, on this SLC, it is also probable that the entire population of Gaza will cease to exist before 2030.

That is because the SLC must be adjusted to take account of the fact that the percentage of the population killed increases every month as the total number of survivors of the holocaust decreases. Other factors may also result in a sudden increase in deaths e.g. from starvation. NB the $320m Gaza humanitarian pier (paid for by US taxpayers) is being dismantled & may never come back & according to one journalist with sources on the ground – no food and medical supplies went into Gaza last week –  ‘Max Blumenthal: Israelis Killing Their Own – #HannibalDirective (youtube.com))

Hannibal Directive – ‘IDF Ordered Hannibal Directive on October 7 to Prevent Hamas Taking Soldiers Captive – Israel News – Haaretz.com

The death toll in Israel from the Hamas-led attacks is estimated to be 1,139. Assuming that the total number of Israelis killed by the IDF that day = 60%, then the IDF killed 683.4 Israelis. So, Hamas killed 456 (and I am not in any way condoning these deaths which were all unlawful killings – I am merely stating a fact). Therefore the kill exchange ratio = 250,000 Palestinians divided by 455.60 Israelis.

The death exchange ratio = 250,000 Palestinians divided by 455.60 Israelis.

This yields a ratio of 548 Palestinian lives for 1 Israeli life, i.e. a ratio of 1:548.

To illustrate the disproportionate scale of these killings compare:
UK population of 67,968,441 x 10.52% would = 7,136,686 UK deaths.
US population of 341,864,230 x 10.52% would = 35,964,116.996.

Notes added:

See also:

Is Biden or Orban Shaping Our World? (youtube.com)

‘Will a restatement of the International Rule of Law by BRICS + the SCO eventually form the legal bedrock of an evolving Eurasian Multi-Nodal World Order thereby displacing neoliberalism & the International Liberal Rules Based Order?’

If such a global re-ordering takes place, I wonder if ‘collaboration’ leading to ‘convergence’ (see the ‘Idea of Geopolitical Mediation’ on the ‘Geopolitical Mediation’ page), and closer ‘economic integration’, could prevent a war between ‘great powers’ from happening in the future?

For background, I recommend that you Google & watch:

The Summit of the Future — Jeffrey D. Sachs (jeffsachs.org)

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: Political Upheaval and Global Security Challenges (youtube.com)

Pepe Escobar : SCO Summit a Geopolitical Game Changer (youtube.com)

So, in a post-BREXIT & evolving ‘multi-nodal’ world, how can Labour achieve its economic growth plan without maximising engagement in international trade with members of BRICS (+ the SCO Eurasian security partnership – which Turkey may leave NATO to join)?

Arguably, a logical corollary of the Q. above, is – ‘If the UK engages in a war with a member of BRICS + SCO – what impact will that have on international trade & the UK economy?’

A 3rd Q. is – ‘If we lose such a war, how will we be allowed full access to an international trade market which potentially spans a landmass running from Lisbon to Vladivostok (E – W); from MENA to South Africa (N-S) & (S-N) in South America (+ the Caribbean)?’

So, has Starmer made a fundamental geopolitical mistake within the first hours of his administration, by confirming that there will be no change in UK Foreign Policy vis-a-vis: (i) ‘neo-liberalism’ (based upon US hegemony in what is now a ‘multi-polar’ world); and (ii) ‘de-globalisation’ (based upon the displacement of ‘neo-liberalism’ & ‘great power politics’, by the creation of a comprehensive ‘multi-nodal’: (a) ‘geo-political’; (b) ‘geo-economic’; & (c) ‘security’ architecture, underwritten by a ‘restatement of the International Rule of Law’ & the ‘creation of new international dispute settlement institutions’, by: (a) BRICS + SCO (who may cohere into a single organisational entity); & (b) the remainder of the ‘Global South’, including members of the Commonwealth – who may apply for membership?

In other words, has Starmer committed himself to sailing the UK ship in the wrong ‘geo-economic’ & ‘geo-political’ direction, by committing UK Foreign Policy to an outdated & failed model – ‘Neo-Liberalism’? See the prediction in my blog – ‘Centre for Geopolitics at Cambridge University Panel Event about the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).’ [04.08.2023], on the ‘Conflict’ page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com.

What do you think?

I will return to this theme when I start work in 2025 on my planned book – ‘Cultural Heritage Law & International Dispute Settlement’. See the corresponding page at www.carlislam.co.uk. Meanwhile, as an author, I will be following future developments with a keen academic interest.

Notes added:

See also my recent blogs on the ‘Geopolitical Mediation & Peace Building’ page:
–    ‘Peace requires the establishment of a new “Westphalian” world order.’
–   ‘Is the dynamic root of the geopolitical contest between Global North v. Global South – “cultural”?’
–   ‘Emergence of a New World Order?’
& my  blog on this page – ‘Toward an International Cultural Heritage Court.’
See also – The Summit of the Future — Jeffrey D. Sachs (jeffsachs.org)

‘Assuming that globalization, constrained state sovereignty, and demographic revolution continue as basic world trends, the world order is likely to be one in which concerns about conflicts of interests drive interactions, but no state or group of states is capable of benefitting from unilaterally enforcing its will against the rest. Thus, there is no set of “poles” whose competition or cooperation determines the world order, despite the differences of exposure created by disparities in capacity. Although the United States and China will be the primary state actors and their relationship will contain elements of rivalry as well as cooperation, the prerequisites of Cold War bipolarity no longer exist. Rather, the order would be best described as “multinodal,” a matrix of interacting, unequal units that pursue their own interests within a stable array of national units and an increasing routinization of international regimes and interpenetrating transnational connections.’ (China’s Future in a Multinodal World Order | Pacific Affairs (UBC Journal)).

‘The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is a strategic partner of the United Nations on issues relating to political affairs and peace and security. In April 2010, the UN and SCO Secretariats signed the Joint Declaration on Cooperation, which includes information exchange and capacity building. In addition, SCO has also established partnerships with the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) … United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Trade Organization (WTO), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), and United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT). The UN and the SCO pursued their cooperation, particularly in the area of peace and security, including counter-terrorism and prevention of violent extremism, and sustainable development. The Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA), as well as UNRCCA (United Nations Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia) maintain regular contacts with the SCO Secretariat and its Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure in Tashkent.’
(Shanghai Cooperation Organization | Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (un.org)).

‘UN Secretary has called for a Summit of the Future at the United Nations on September 22-23 … [This was] endorsed by the 193 UN Member states. The core idea of the Summit … is that humanity is facing a set of unprecedented challenges that can only be solved through global cooperation.  The crisis of human-induced climate change (especially the warming of the planet) cannot be solved by any one country alone.  Nor can the crises of wars (such as in Ukraine and Gaza) or the geopolitical tensions (between the US and China) be settled by one or two countries alone.  Each country, even the major powers including the US, China, Russia, India, and others are part of a complex global structure of power, economics, and politics that requires truly global solutions. The Summit will revolve around 5 core topics, all of them related to multilateralism, meaning the system by which nations co-exist with the rest of the world.  These topics are: (1) the goal of sustainable development; (2) the goal of peace; (3) the control of new technologies such as artificial intelligence; (4) the empowerment of young people and future generations; and (5) reform of the UN architecture.’ (The Summit of the Future — Jeffrey D. Sachs (jeffsachs.org)

‘The U.S. hegemony crisis is partly economic and social, derived from the failure of neoliberalism as an alternative to the accumulation crisis and its social consequences; but it is, above all, the result of changes brought about in power structures. This hegemony crisis could be understood as the loss or depletion of the economic structure, the political organization, and the ideological orientation instruments created after World War II, which are necessary to maintain a stable world order. Marco Gandásegui, founding leader of the CLACSO “United States Studies” Working Group (WG), assumed this crisis as a result of a “global” phenomenon. However, in his internal determinations related to the American power structure, he stressed its changes in the context of “neoliberal globalization.” He interrogated the ability, or lack thereof, of the American capitalist class or internal bourgeoisie to tackle the crisis, in a context of disarticulation and weakening of the working class.’ (The Hegemony Crisis, the Neoliberal Model, and the United States Power Structure – Dídimo Castillo Fernández, 2021 (sagepub.com)).

Neoliberalism is both a body of economic theory and a policy stance (Google ‘Globalization and Neoliberalism by David M. Kotz’Glob_and_NL_02.pdf (umass.edu)).  Globalization’ is an ideal of Neoliberalism.

‘Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as “eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers” and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy. It is also commonly associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States. Some scholars note it has a number of distinct usages in different spheres:
– As a development model, it refers to the rejection of structuralist economics in favor of the Washington Consensus.
– As an ideology, it denotes a conception of freedom as an overarching social value associated with reducing state functions to those of a minimal state.
– As a public policy, it involves the privatization of public economic sectors or services, the deregulation of private corporations, sharp decrease of government budget deficits and reduction of spending on public works.’ (Wikipedia).

‘Globalisation is the process of interaction and integration among people, companies, and governments worldwide. … Globalization is primarily an economic process of interaction and integration that is associated with social and cultural aspects. However, disputes and international diplomacy are also large parts of the history of globalization, and of modern globalization.
Economically, globalization involves goods, services, data, technology, and the economic resources of capital. The expansion of global markets liberalizes the economic activities of the exchange of goods and funds. Removal of cross-border trade barriers has made the formation of global markets more feasible. Advances in transportation, like the steam locomotive, steamship, jet engine, and container ships, and developments in telecommunication infrastructure such as the telegraph, the Internet, mobile phones, and smartphones, have been major factors in globalization and have generated further interdependence of economic and cultural activities around the globe.’ (Wikipedia).

‘Deglobalization or deglobalisation is the process of diminishing interdependence and integration between certain units around the world, typically nation-states. … It stands in contrast to globalization, in which units become increasingly integrated over time, and generally spans the time between periods of globalization. While globalization and deglobalization are antitheses, they are not mirror images. …

The occurrence of deglobalization has strong proponents who have claimed the death of globalization, but is also contested by the former Director-General of the World Trade Organization Pascal Lamy and leading academics such as Michael Bordo who argue that it is too soon to give a good diagnosis and Mervyn Martin who argues that US and UK policies are rational answers to essential temporary problems of even strong nations.

While as with globalization, deglobalization can refer to economic, trade, social, technological, cultural and political dimensions, much of the work that has been conducted in the study of deglobalization refers to the field of international economics.’ (Wikipedia).

‘Decades of neoliberal globalisation involved a refashioning of global and national rules to favour large private capital, in the form of financial and real investments and greater “ease of doing business”. It was associated with major privatisations: of public assets, of natural resources, of essential services (such as health, education and sanitation), of major amenities that were earlier seen as “natural monopolies” (like electricity) and even of knowledge (through intellectual property rights). It involved deregulation of other markets, leading to less protection of labour and the environment. This led to sharp declines in public wealth across the world and extreme concentrations of assets in the hands of a few multinational corporations and rich individuals. Inequality also reduced mass consumption demand, making for lower levels of economic activity and therefore employment. Meanwhile, technological changes added to inequality by reducing demand for many types of workers. …
Unfortunately, the current deglobalisation also remains fundamentally neoliberal in its nature and inspiration.’ …
(Globalisation and Deglobalisation: The Impact and the Alternatives – Intereconomics).

‘Most people would likely claim a general understanding of neoliberalism as a movement of laissez-faire principles aimed at ensuring free markets and an “unfettered” economy. In Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism, one of the first intellectual histories of the movement, Quinn Slobodian shows that, in the beginning, neoliberalism was actually about shielding the economic world from the political world—about protecting the global economy, not freeing it. For Slobodian, neoliberalism is ultimately less a theory of the market or economics than of law and state, and his work gives us a much clearer sense of how the old world of empire gave way in the twentieth century not to a quasi-libertarian world of markets but to international institutions that were highly active in prescribing trade policies and rules about competition. Below, Slobodian introduces his study, and recounts its origins in a late-1990s moment when passion could often outpace understanding.’

(Making Sense of Neoliberalism – Harvard University Press Blog (typepad.com)).

[I have ordered a copy of the book].

So, neo-liberalism has resulted in a divided society in the US & UK & a world split between a rich minority (living in the ‘Global North’) & a poor majority (living in the ‘Global South’), i.e. an uneven distribution of rights, wealth, power & control over resources. Because our challenges are existential, the current model of ‘deglobalisation’ is not a practical alternative for humanity. Thus, there is no alternative to substantially increased international cooperation on key issues.

Fresh thinking about a practical & fair model of ‘de-globalisation’ is required in order to redress inequality through ‘balance’ and ‘distributive justice’. A new form of ‘balance of power politics’?

On the ‘Geopolitical Mediation’ page – see the ‘Idea of Geopolitical Mediation’, I argue that this requires ‘competition’ between ‘great powers’ to be transformed into ‘collaboration’, through a mediated process whereby their competing interests converge for mutual gain, i.e. instead of behaving as ‘competitors’, state actors become ‘partners’. This idea will of course be opposed by existing elites who have benefited from globalisation. What do you think is a fit for purpose alternative to globalisation?

See also:

“Was Tony Blair’s Prime Ministership Neoliberal?”: A Survey of British Economic Policy, 1979-2007 by Nader Elhefnawy :: SSRN

jessop-from-thatcherism-to-new-labour.pdf (lancaster.ac.uk)

Second-wave neoliberalism in the 1990s: Clinton’s market globalism and Blair’s Third Way | Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

‘Can Starmer Save Britain? Why Labour’s Sweeping Victory May Not Reverse the Country’s Decline.’

Writing in Foreign Affairs Journal 5 July 2024 in an article – ‘Can Starmer Save Britain? Why Labour’s Sweeping Victory May Not Reverse the Country’s Decline’, Fintan O’Toole wrote:

‘Starmer has to create a virtuous circle in which a radical renewal of the United Kingdom’s sclerotic democracy feeds into and is in turn fed by an energetic revival of its flaccid economy. But if there is no virtuous circle, there will be a vicious one. Political disillusionment will quickly take hold again. Over four million people voted for Farage’s far-right Reform Party, giving it 14 percent of overall party support. Although the workings of the electoral system translated this into just four Commons seats (including one for Farage himself), it gives him a solid base from which he can seek to capitalize on the Conservatives’ disarray.

If Starmer fails to turn public anger into a more long-term optimism, the sour English nationalism that Farage taps into will thrive on that hopelessness. With traditional conservatism in such deep disarray, there is the potential for the right-wing of English politics to end in a MAGA-style takeover. Not the least of its consequences will be the blocking of any moves toward taking the country back into Europe. That in turn will renew the drives toward separation in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales.

Labour’s victory has given the United Kingdom a chance to save itself by remaking itself. It has sprung from a very deep pool of disenchantment with the way things work in the country—and the multiple ways in which they patently do not. If Starmer grasps the truth that his triumph is a function of the United Kingdom’s brokenness, he will have the courage to begin to fix it. If not, it will remain dangerously unfixed. And it may indeed become unfixable. The party that has dominated it for 200 years has imploded. It would be foolish to imagine that the same thing could not happen to the country.’

Can Starmer Save Britain? Why Labour’s Sweeping Victory May Not Reverse the Country’s Decline (foreignaffairs.com)

As the Mother Ship of the Commonwealth, the UK is uniquely positioned to mediate peace between the Global North & Global South. Instead of taking sides and behind closed doors, the UK can choose to mediate peace in Ukraine & Gaza. Conversely, logic suggests that if Britain engineers/participates in a hot war with Russia in Europe and v. the Arabs in MENA, loses and consequently BRICS establish new global governance institutions that eventually replace the UN, then unless the UK has a seat at the table, it will be impotent to shape the future of geopolitics. Instead of being a global ‘player’ it will become a global ‘outsider’. If a coalition of ‘Reform and the Conservatives’ win in 2029, and Britain is assessed by investors as being a political ‘risk’ for investment, i.e. because it is evaluated by experts as being politically volatile/unstable, then what impact will that have on inward investment? The choice is between the UK being at peace or war with BRICS & the Global South. So, Starmer must lead & not be led.

 

‘Toward an International Cultural Heritage Court?’

As I observe in my essay ‘Mediating Cultural Property Disputes’ on the ‘Mediating Cultural Property Disputes’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk:

‘At the epicentre of the restitution dialogue is a struggle between two competing theories under International Cultural Heritage Law.
1.   ‘Cultural nationalism’ – Proponents of this view believe that cultural objects belong within the boundaries of the ‘source’ nation of origin.
2.   ‘Cultural internationalism’ – Proponents of this view regard cultural property as being in the words of the 1954 Hague Convention –  ‘the cultural heritage of all mankind.’
Is this tension capable of reconciliation by the determination of a judge sitting in an International Cultural Heritage Court established by either the UN or BRICS?
Unlike a common law ‘domestic’ judge, such an international judge could:
(i) Apply principles of International Cultural Heritage Law.
(ii) Espouse evolutive interpretations of International Law Treaties.
(iii) Consider factors external to the law such as: history; morality; ‘practical ethics’; and peculiar local customs, i.e. after hearing expert academic opinion and evidence.
(iv) Exercise judicial discretion in order to ignore the letter of Treaty law where it proves to be unjust or immoral, thereby creating a new body of international law jurisprudence, i.e. of ‘equitable’ principles based upon: (a) core tenets of ‘natural law’, and ‘distributive justice’; and (b) a ‘re-imagining’ of the core principles of international law evolved centuries ago by western legal philosophers, in order to satisfy the ‘cultural’ needs of what is now a globalised ‘civilization’/’community’ in a modern, post-colonial, and geo-politically ‘multi-polar’ era?
Could such an international court become an incubator and instrument of ‘creative’ co-operation between states, in contrast to being a blunt and ‘politicised’ tool of binary competition for scarce resources between states in the Global North v. states in the Global South?

‘The current legal regime does not always manage to accommodate the diverse and competing interests struggling with each other in the realm of cultural heritage. In addition, while ADR methods are to be preferred, it is rather unlikely that all cultural heritage controversies can be effectively resolved through these mechanisms. Furthermore, litigation appears inadequate, lengthy and costly. Overall, these problems support the case for the establishment of a permanent international court. One can argue that until there is a supranational body empowered to resolve disputes and penalise uncooperative nations, unethical stakeholders and criminals, persuasion or appeals to cooperation will not prevail if it is not in the interests of the stakeholder concerned.’ (‘The Settlement Of International Cultural Heritage Disputes’, by Alessandro Chechi (2014), Oxford University Press, pp. 204 & 205.)

‘The wide range of potential cultural heritage claims/applications which have been/could be determined by the International Court of Justice – linked under International Law to peace & protection of the environment.’

Today I have been thinking about the: (i) ‘jurisdiction’ of the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’); & (ii) ‘standing’ of a state to apply to the ICJ (without the consent of the other state party), in a contentious dispute about ‘cultural heritage’, e.g. ownership of an ancient shipwreck & its cargo lying on the seabed.

I will be examining this when I research my next book – ‘Cultural Heritage Law & International Dispute Settlement’, which I am planning to start work on in my free time in August.

The short quote below is from an essay – ‘The International Court of Justice and Cultural Heritage – International Cultural Heritage Law Through the Lens of World Court Jurisprudence?’ by Gabriele Gagliani, published in ‘Intersections In International Cultural Heritage Law’ (2020), edited by Anne-Marie Carstens & Elizabeth Varner.

It illustrates the wide range of potential cultural heritage claims/applications which have been/could be determined by the ICJ, that are linked to the protection under International Humanitarian Law (‘IHL’) of:

(i)    a ‘community’;

(ii)   a ‘society’;

(iii)  an ‘indigenous population’;

(iv)  their ‘cultural property’;

(v)   their ‘language’ and ‘intangible cultural heritage’; and

(vi)  the ‘environment’,

during an armed conflict, i.e. collectively, as ‘cultural heritage.’

Can a state make an urgent application to the ICJ for provisional measures [‘PM’s] in anticipation of an armed conflict, which places cultural heritage in imminent peril?

If ‘yes’, this is linked to the prohibition on arms sales/banning export licences for the supply of arms, i.e. if PM’s are ordered.

‘One can safely conclude that the ICJ has given consideration, although with varying degrees, to cultural heritage and cultural heritage arguments and thus has contributed to the development of international cultural heritage law. Generally speaking, Parties in dispute before the ICJ Have not leveraged strong cultural heritage law arguments. As a consequence, the ICJ itself has recognised relevance to cultural heritage arguments only when these have been coupled with other types of argument, such as access to natural resources or the immunity of historical monuments used for public purposes. Nonetheless, the court, together with the PCIJ, has marked the emergence and expansion of international cultural heritage law. It has elaborated relevant concepts such as the one of ‘community’, and it has corroborated the relationship between cultural heritage and other fields of international law, such as environmental law and human rights. Moreover, it has allowed for the borders of cultural Heritage law to expand, and it has somehow strengthened the ‘international’ approach to cultural protection and management. In this position, the ICJ has engaged in a ‘dialogue’ with other international tribunals.’

‘Should any group or organisation which lobbies members of Parliament on behalf of Israel be legally banned as an extremist group/organisation under the new legal definition of extremism?’

In my blog, below – ‘How can the US lawfully continue to supply arms to a UN “black-listed” state which appears to have been classified & branded by the UN as being a de-facto “terrorist” state?’, I wrote:

The UN is adding Israel to its ‘blacklist’ of countries that have committed abuses against children in armed conflict. Others on the list include: the Islamic State (IS) group; al-Shabaab; the Taliban, and al-Qaeda. So, it would appear, that in the eyes of the entire international community, the UN has classified and branded Israel, as being a de-facto ‘terrorist’ state, by inter alia – association.’

Now, does the ‘blacklisting’ of Israel by the UN, on its own, or taken together with: (i) the catalogue of war crimes & crimes against humanity which Israel has been accused of committing – including genocide; and (ii) the imminent issue by the ICJ of an international warrant for the arrest of Netanyahu & Gallant as war criminals, constitute and provide, a sufficient evidentiary base/foundation for a vote to take place in Parliament about whether:

‘Any lobby or interest group in the UK which raises funds for Israel and/or exercises/seeks to exercise any coercive power over political decision making should be banned as an “extremist group” under the new legal definition?’

That would instantly cut off the power of the Israel Lobby in the UK, thereby allowing our MP’s to vote with their conscience & not seemingly because of political loyalty to a foreign power which has been bought and paid for by Israel, and its friends in the UK.

In my blog below –  ‘New Definition of Extremism in UK’ on the ‘International Humanitarian Law’ page of the Diplomatic Law Guide, I wrote:

‘In legislating for a new definition of “extremism” parliamentarians need to be wary, and careful that they do not throw the baby out with the bathwater, by proscribing criticism of what Israel is doing in Gaza, the US neo-cons have done in Ukraine, and about the catastrophic influence on US, and by proxy UK foreign policy, of Evangelical Christian Zionists – who believe in the 2nd coming of Christ at Armageddon, i.e. whose ultimate objective is Armageddon. Do you not think that exerting any political influence in order to bring about Armageddon, i.e. nuclear war, is not only harmful to the national security interests of the UK but is also “extremism”? The question is, why are MP’s not discussing this. Michael Gove did not even mention Zionists. Parliamentarians must not allow wool to be pulled over their eyes. It will be interesting to hear expert commentary about whether this new definition applies to donations made by Zionists (including Evangelical Christian Zionists) through the Israel Lobby, to UK MP’s and political parties.’

Of course, if this were to happen, then logically it appears to follow, that if any person, group, or organisation become an apologist for what Israel and the IDF have done, and are doing daily, in Gaza, in breach of the provisional measures ordered by the ICJ two weeks ago, that they will themselves be at risk of investigation and possibly prosecution, for being an ‘extremist’ by ‘association.’ This conclusion is arguably consistent with the bracketing-in of Israel and the IDF with: (i) the Islamic State (IS) group; (ii) al-Shabaab; (ii) the Taliban; and (ii0al-Qaeda, because the UN has placed Israel on a UN Black-List to which each of the afore-mentioned belong. An exclusive ‘club’ for super-war criminals, each of whom has committed the mass-murder of civilians in breach of every article of International Law.

‘How can the US lawfully continue to supply arms to a UN “black-listed” state which appears to have been classified & branded by the UN as being a de-facto “terrorist” state?’

The UN is adding Israel to its ‘blacklist’ of countries that have committed abuses against children in armed conflict. Others on the list include: the Islamic State (IS) group; al-Shabaab; the Taliban, and al-Qaeda.

So, it would appear, that in the eyes of the entire international community, the UN has classified and branded Israel, as being a de-facto ‘terrorist’ state,  by inter alia – association.

This follows an unpublished UN annual report to the Secretary-General  on children in armed conflict which compiled a list of parties engaging in violations against children, including killing and maiming, sexual violence and attacks on schools and hospitals. The latest attack by Israel on a school took place on the same day as the D Day Commemorations in Normandy.  See: Israel Has LOST – And This PROVES It (youtube.com)

In what, based upon my legal knowledge of Diplomatic Law & Protocol, is as far as I am aware, an unprecedented breach of Diplomatic Protocol, the Israeli Ambassador to the UN – Gilad Erdan, posted  part of a video of him speaking into a telephone with a United Nations official about the content of this confidential and unpublished report.

He said – ‘Our army is the most moral in the world.’

Tell that to the parents who in the aftermath, went into the carnage, to collect the charred body parts of their children who had been blown to pieces by Israel in a UN school, on the 80th Commemoration of D Day. See:

Israel attacks UN-run school in central Gaza, killing at least 40 | Israel-Palestine conflict News | Al Jazeera

Biden has said nothing. Nor has Sunak or Starmer – even though he found time to criticise Sunak for ‘letting the country down’, see:  ‘Are we a five minute wonder?’ D-Day veteran Ken Hay asks Sky’s Adam Parsons | News UK Video News | Sky News

Secretary-General Guterres’s spokesperson Stephane Dujarric, said of this breach of Diplomatic Protocol by Israel’s ambassador:

Ambassador Erdan’s video recording of that phone call, and the partial release of that recording on Twitter, is shocking and unacceptable – and frankly something I’ve never seen in my 24 years serving this organisation.

See: UN adding Israel to ‘blacklist’ of countries harming children in conflict | Gaza News | Al Jazeera

So, how can any political leader now be confident that Israel will not post a recording of any confidential diplomatic exchange on Twitter. In other words, how can any state trust Israel? What Israel has done through its ambassador to the UN – who recently shredded the UN charter in front of ambassadors in the UN Assembly Hall, is not only an irrecoverable blow to its reputation and integrity, it adds credence to the voices of those full members states of the UN, who may consider that Israel is no longer fit to belong as a member of the UN.

See also my blog below – ‘What fundamental Zionist beliefs drive Joe Biden’s foreign policy toward Israel?’ It records that, Max Blumenthal (‘MB’), speaking at the Woman’s National Democratic Club in Washington DC on March 7, 2024, said:
‘During a closed session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joe Biden … shocked … Israeli Prime Minister … Menachim Begin by saying, “I would go even further than you. I would be willing to kill women and children”. …’
MB cited as his source: ‘The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore American Foreign Policy After Trump’ (2024) by Alexander Ward.

The author is described by Amazon as being ‘[the former] White House and national security reporter at Vox. He was an associate director on the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. He has won multiple prestigious awards for his reporting and was a part of a team that was a finalist for the 2023 Pulitzer Prize.’ The account referred to appears on pp. 84 & 85.

So, if the bomb dropped on the shool was supplied with the approval of Biden, then it appears that this outcome is what he in fact achieved on 6 June 2024.

Notes added 09.06.2024

See also my blog below – ‘What fundamental Zionist beliefs drive Joe Biden’s foreign policy toward Israel?’ It records that, Max Blumenthal (‘MB’), speaking at the Woman’s National Democratic Club in Washington DC on March 7, 2024, said:
‘During a closed session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joe Biden … shocked … Israeli Prime Minister … Menachim Begin by saying, “I would go even further than you. I would be willing to kill women and children”. …’
MB cited as his source: ‘The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore American Foreign Policy After Trump’ (2024) by Alexander Ward.
The author is described by Amazon as being ‘[the former] White House and national security reporter at Vox. He was an associate director on the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. He has won multiple prestigious awards for his reporting and was a part of a team that was a finalist for the 2023 Pulitzer Prize.’ The account referred to appears on pp. 84 & 85. So, if the bomb dropped on the shool was supplied with the approval of Biden, then it appears that this outcome is what he in fact achieved on 6 June 2024.
Thankyou to Kevin Magee for liking this post on LinkedIn. Ambassador Magee was formerly the Australian Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Director of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Consulate-General in Guangzhou, China, and Deputy Head of Mission at the Australian Embassy in Moscow. Obvious his views are his own, but I am personally honoured that he reads my posts on these issues.
Israel has intensified its attack on Rafah in breach of the ICJ order two weeks ago. Civilians, mainly women and children, who are already starving to death, and have no water, electricity, shelter, and medical care, are at this minute – all over the Gaza strip, being blown to pieces, by US supplied bombs and other munitions supplied by the United Kingdom, France and Germany, see:

Why are Biden, Macron, Sunak & Starmer, not intervening to impose an immediate cease-fire? As far as I am aware, they have not even commented. Are they blind? Do they not care about human lives? or are they acting in the interests of a foreign power – Israel & ‘Zionism’, by not only: turning a blind eye; providing what is in effect a ‘green light’ to the IDF to commit mass murder; but also by supplying arms/permitting export licences for the supply of arms to Israel, to be approved, with either actual or imputed legal knowledge that these arms and parts, are being/can be/ probably will be used, to commit the mass murder of women and children?
If a journalist asks Biden, Macron, or Sunak to justify their behaviour, and they reply – ‘Israel has a right to defend itself’, what in fact is the legal basis of this belief? As I have repeatedly explained as an International Humantiarian Law commentator: (i) commission of war crimes & crimes v. humanity is not ‘self-defence’; (ii) ‘self-defence’ is not even available as a defence, because Israel is an ‘occupier’; & (iii) the absolute prohibition against ‘Genocide’ is not only ‘erga omnes’, it is also ‘jus cogens’ i.e. there never is, or ever can be, any legal justification. So, how can Biden, Macron & Sunak legally justify their decisions? One day in the future, after the elections, each of them may have to ask this question when put to them by a criminal prosecutor. So, I hope that if Sir Keir Starmer is elected as Prime Minister, that one of his first acts, will be to order an immediate suspension of all export licences for the supply of arms and parts to Israel, and to prohibit the approval of all further licences, without excpetion. Let’s see what he actually does, as the blood on the hands of Biden, Macron & Sunak is not only on their hands, it is also on ours, because they have acted in our name.
30 minutes ago [13:30 GMT] ‘the Al-Aqsa Hospital spokesman Khalil al-Degran reported: “A lot of martyrs and wounded” are still in the streets following the attack on the refugee camps. Israeli forces are committing “brutal massacres regularly” and “destroying” the health system across the Gaza Strip. This is the only hospital that can provide healthcare for the one million displaced people, and they “suffer” due to shortages of medical staff and supplies. The hospital is full of patients and there is no space for more people. Al-Aqsa Hospital is now running on one generator – if it stops working, a “catastrophe is waiting for every one of us”. The hospital needs an “urgent intervention” to save it. He urges Palestinians in the area to go to the hospital “immediately” to donate blood. “We condemn the Israeli attack against Al Nuseirat refugee camp and the central governate [Deir el-Balah], and we urge the international community [and] international organisations to do whatever it takes to stop this brutality by the Israeli forces.” (Al-Jazeera news (08.06.2024)).
Right now and in front of our eyes, Israel, is committing ‘brutal massacres’ of women and children all over the Gaza strip. The world is watching. Will the UK intervene?
See also:
(86) Updates Israel’s war on Gaza updates: Death toll passes 37,000 in Gaza (aljazeera.com)
274 Palestinians were killed by Israel, as I was writing this post yesterday afternoon. According to news reports, Over 700 were also maimed/seriously wounded. The bodies of dead/wounded civilians were strewn all over the streets of Gaza in whatever direction a film crew pointed a camera. This is one of the single worst attrocities committed by the IDF that has been recorded on film live as it happened. It consisted of multiple-massacres. The survivors of these massacres had only one hospital to go to. That hospital was operating on one generator. I have yet to hear Rishi Sunak, who has not even provided a reason for abandonning the WW2 veterans at the 80th Commemoration of D Day in Normandy on Thursday, condemn the mass murder of civilians by Israel. Nor as far as I am aware has Sir Keir Starmer. Why the silence over a war crime which is also a crime agaianst humanity, and is further evidence of an ongoing Genocide? These are serious issues.
Owen Jones who is a reporter for the Guardian & a contributor to the New Statesman, i.e. a serious, professional & rigorous journalist, reported in his video, that Palestinian patients under the medical care of Israel, had been tortured. The implement of torture, described by him, with which allegedly, the Israelis, and Isaraeli medical staff had tortured Palestinian patients who were allegedly taken out of their hospital beds by Israeli nurses, sounded like the electronic equivalent of a medieval iron ‘poking’ rod which had been placed in a fire until the tip was white hot. One of these Palestinian patients was allegedly tortured to death by the Israelis and by Israeli medical staff. So, if this is how the Israeli medical profession behaves, why would any reputable teaching hospital, professional medical association, and manufacturer & supplier of medicines to Israel, wish to have their name/’brand’ damaged, by in any way associating themselves with Israel, and what has allegedly gone on/is possibly going on today, inside Israeli hospitals, with the alleged active participation of Israeli health care professionals?

‘Ahead of an imminent attack on Rafah by Israel Gaza is now officially in a state of Famine.’

12 hours ago, Samantha Power, Director of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), told lawmakers that people in parts of northern Gaza have begun facing famine. A group of U.S. government humanitarian experts on Tuesday privately warned fellow officials that the spread of hunger and malnutrition in Gaza amid the U.S.-backed Israeli offensive is “unprecedented in modern history,” famine is likely already occurring in parts of the Gaza Strip and the pace of hunger-related deaths will “accelerate in the weeks ahead.”

The striking assessment was shared in a cable drafted by officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development and sent to the White House’s National Security Council, State Department offices and diplomatic posts abroad. It reflects outside aid groups’ reading of the desperate situation in Gaza and shows the Biden administration is aware of the risk that the death toll there will rise dramatically as it continues to support Israel’s operation and resist calls for a permanent end to the war.

“An immediate and substantial flow of food, health, nutrition and [sanitation] assistance; expanded humanitarian access; and safe unimpeded passage for humanitarian workers is paramount to addressing Famine conditions in Gaza,” the officials wrote. “While hostilities remain ongoing, however, humanitarians will face considerable challenges in providing life-saving aid and specialized services to those in need in Gaza.”

Famine was created by the State of Israel.

Wikipedia now has a ‘Gaza Strip Famine’ page which states:

‘The Israel-Hamas War has led to famine conditions in the Gaza Strip, resulting from Israeli airstrikes and the ongoing blockade of the Gaza Strip by Israel, which includes restrictions on humanitarian aid.[4][5][6] Airstrikes have destroyed food infrastructure, such as bakeries, mills, and food stores, and there is a widespread scarcity of essential supplies due to the blockade of aid.[c] This has caused starvation for more than half a million Gazans and is part of a broader humanitarian crisis in the Strip. It is the “highest number of people facing catastrophic hunger” ever recorded on the IPC scale,[8] and is widely expected to be the most intense man-made famine since the Second World War.’ Gaza Strip famine – Wikipedia

Google:

I also recommend that you watch:

So, on what legal basis can Lord Cameron credibly assert that there is absolutely no serious risk of genocide? – see my previous post – ‘When was the legal advice referred to by Lord Cameron given?

At the time of writing, and as far as I am aware – since the announcment by Samantha Powers 12 hours ago that Gaza is now officially in a state of famine: Rishi Sunak and none of his ministers, including Lord Cameron have made any comment or statement; the UK Government has not made any official statement to confirm or rebut the facts relied upon by Samantha Powers in making her statement; COBRA has not been convened; MP’s are all still on holiday; and arms are being supplied to Israel – some of which may be used to murder starving unarmed women and children in Rafah. I wonder if you will even hear this mentioned on the News today?
Google also – https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/mar-18-2024-famine-imminent-northern-gaza

‘Q1: Is Gaza in famine?

A1: Yes.

Evidence of Gaza’s “catastrophic living conditions,” as described by the International Court of Justice on March 28, is abundant. Humanitarian access is severely restricted, leading to malnutrition, starvation, and, in some cases, death. According to Gazan authorities, Palestinians in Gaza have also died in the delivery of humanitarian assistance: more than 100 Palestinians were killed at an aid convoy near Gaza City on February 29, five Palestinians were killed by a malfunctioned airdrop of humanitarian assistance on March 8, and 12 Palestinians drowned while trying to reach aid dropped into the Mediterranean Sea on March 25. Some Gazans who received humanitarian assistance are using it cautiously, combining flour with animal feed to make bread. Meals for some Palestinians in Gaza, including children, consist of animal feed alone. Many are regularly consuming a wild plant to stave off hunger.’  https://www.csis.org/analysis/famine-gaza

Note that the letter to the PM dated 2 April states:

  • ‘Food insecurity in Gaza has reached a catastrophic level. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (operated by UN agencies and humanitarian aid groups) warned on 18 March 2024 that “the entire population in the Gaza Strip (2.23 million) is facing high levels of acute food insecurity”. The World Bank Group warned on 19 March 2024 that more than half the population of Gaza is “on the brink of famine. …’
  • The international community has sounded strong warning alarms against Israel’s threatened ground invasion of Rafah. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights warns that a “potential full-fledged military incursion into Rafah – where some 1.5 million Palestinians are packed against the Egyptian border with nowhere further to flee-is terrifying..” The UN Undersecretary for Humanitarian Affairs likewise warned that over a million people are ”crammed in Rafah staring death in the face..” Save the Children, highlighting the plight of 610,000 children trapped in Rafah, has stated that “what happens next will be beyond our worst nightmares … With Israeli authorities telling people in Gaza that Rafah is a safe place to flee, 80% of the population – half of whom are children – is now crammed into this area, many with no walls or roofs to shelter and protect them..” …’
  • ‘The prohibition of genocide is recognised as a peremptory (or jus cogens) norm of international law.’
  • ‘States are required “to employ all means reasonably available to them” to prevent genocide and responsibility is incurred if “the state manifestly failed to take all measures to prevent genocide which were within its powers”. The notion of due diligence is of critical importance in this obligation.’
  • ‘The “obligation to prevent, and the corresponding duty to act, arise at the instant that the state learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed. From that moment onwards, if the state has available to it means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide, or reasonably suspected of harbouring specific intent … it is under a duty to make such use of these means as the circumstances permit.” …’
  • ‘International Humanitarian Obligations do not operate on the basis of reciprocity. Even serious violations of IHL by one party to an armed conflict cannot therefore justify their commission by another. Similarly as a peremptory norm of international law, the prohibition of genocide is absolute. Your government’s obligations to prevent genocide are not abrogated by the serious breaches of IHL committed by Hamas on October 7 or by Hamas’ ongoing holding of hostages’.

So, starvation is being used by Israel to commit genocide. We are all witnesses. Israel has no legal defence to genocide under International Law, because the prohibition of genocide is a ‘peremptory’ rule and ‘jus cogens’ norm. A ‘peremptory’ rule which is also a ‘jus cogens’ norm is of universal application and permits of no exception. Consequently, any state which ‘learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed’ is under a duty ‘to employ all means reasonably available to them to prevent genocide.’ Therefore, any state which has ‘actual’ or ‘imputed’ knowledge of the existence even of a ‘serious risk’ of genocide, and which does not suspend the supply of arms to Israel, may be liable in future proceedings as an ‘accessory’ to genocide, i.e. as being legally ‘complicit’ in genocide.

In which event, it may be ordered to pay reparations – which in the case of Gaza could amount to £Billions.

If such an order were made, it would of course be UK taxpayers who eventually paid the bill. So, I am wondering, what legal advice has the government received about this, as being a ‘serious’ risk for which a budgetary contingency may need to be made in order to balance the books?

‘US State Department Official resigns over Gaza’

‘Israel has continued to violate international law as well as American Law … US Laws were not being followed and the State Department and White House officials were denying reality.’   US Official Tells Me Why She RESIGNED Over Gaza – w/. Annelle Sheline (youtube.com)

‘In an interview, Sheline said her focus had been promoting human rights in the Middle East and North Africa, work that was complicated by Israel’s war and a host of accompanying moral, legal, security and diplomatic implications for the United States. Sheline said she tried to raise concerns internally with dissent cables and at staff forums but eventually concluded that it was pointless “as long as the U.S. continues to send a steady stream of weapons to Israel.” Sheline’s departure is the most significant protest resignation over the Gaza conflict since the exit of Josh Paul, who was a senior State Department official involved in arms transfers to foreign governments. In a statement to The Washington Post, Paul commended Sheline for her decision, noting that she is leaving a bureau tasked with championing “universal values, including respect for the rule of law, democratic institutions and human rights,” according to the State Department website. “When the staff of that bureau feel that there is no more they can do,” Paul said, “it speaks volumes about the Biden administration’s disregard for the laws, policies and basic humanity of American foreign policy that the bureau exists to advance.” …’ Google –
‘State Dept. human rights staffer quits over Biden’s Gaza policy – The Washington Post.’

Annelle Sheline is an expert who has a deep understanding of the MENA region – ‘Annelle R. Sheline is a research fellow for the Middle East at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a non-resident fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. Her research focuses on religious authority in the Middle East, examining the intersection of religious and national identities in the Arab monarchies, and emphasizes implications for combating violent extremism.’ https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/people/annelle-r-sheline

So, this is not a low level resignation.

cf the resignation of Elizabeth Wilmhurst – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4377605.stm

These are victories of conscience.

Now that begs a bigger question – How can any British MP who has a ‘conscience’ vote in Parliament in favour of the supply of arms to Israel?

NB The manufacture of arms in the UK by Israeli state owned and private companies is part of the UK’s own arms industry, i.e. the UK is not only supplying arms to Israel – Israel is also manufacturing arms in the UK, including Drones –

CAAT – Israel’s arms industry & its links with the UK

– ‘In 2016, Israeli company Elbit, in conjunction with Thales UK, completed delivery of 54 Watchkeeper WK450 UAVs as part of an £800 million contract.’

‘According to a leaked recording the British Government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public’

See: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/30/uk-government-lawyers-say-israel-is-breaking-international-law-claims-top-tory-in-leaked-recording

I imagine that George Galloway will be asking Rishi Sunak a question about this on Wednesday at PMQ’s.

If this is the advice members of the Foreign Office Legal Department have provided to the UK Government, then what legal advice has been provided by Government Legal Advisors in the US State Department, the German Federal Foreign Office, and the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs to their respective Governments?

In other words, is this the thin edge of the wedge for Israel?

Extract:

‘The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.

The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.

On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.

“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”

The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.

Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.

Answering questions at an “evening drinks reception” hosted by the West Hampstead and Fortune Green Conservatives in London, Kearns said: “The Foreign Office has received official legal advice that Israel has broken international humanitarian law but the government has not announced it.

“They have not said it, they haven’t stopped arms exports. They have done a few very small sanctions on Israeli settlers and everyone internationally is agreed that settlers are illegal, that they shouldn’t be doing what they’re doing, and the ways in which they have continued and the money that’s been put in.”

Kearns told the gathering that both she and Cameron believed strongly in Israel’s right to defend itself. “But the right to self-defence has a limit in law. It is not limitless,” she said, going on to suggest that Israel’s actions put its and the UK’s long-term security at risk.

“Some of the ways in which Israel is prosecuting this is making their long-term security less certain. It is making our long-term security less certain. I’m amazed that our national threat level has not gone up. And it breaks my heart because I know it could be done differently.”

The British barrister Sir Geoffrey Nice, who was the lead prosecutor at former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic’s trial from 2002 to 2006, said he would not be at all surprised if such advice had been given by government lawyers and called for it to be made public.

Nice said: “A warring party becomes unlawful if it cannot show that its actions have been proportionate. It would not be surprising if there had been advice to that effect from the Foreign Office’s lawyers.”

Were that to be the case, he said that “at the very least that would mean the UK would have to look at the whole issue of arms sales to Israel. It takes you into the area of aiding and abetting. It takes you into to very difficult areas.”

He added: “Countries supplying arms to Israel may now be complicit in criminal warfare. The public should be told what the advice says.”

The UK’s arms exports to Israel amounted to £42m in 2022, a figure described by defence secretary Grant Shapps as “relatively small”.

But former lord chancellor Charles Falconer said a legal assessment that Israel had broken international law would also prevent the UK sharing intelligence with Israel.

“Governments who abide by the rule of law cannot ignore mounting evidence of breach which would then put those governments in breach if they continued assisting,” he said.

In a session of the foreign affairs select committee in January, Cameron was asked directly by Kearns whether “you have never had a piece of paper put in front of you by a Foreign Office lawyer that says that Israel is in breach of its international humanitarian commitments under international humanitarian law”.

Cameron stated that “I cannot recall every single bit of paper that has been put in front of me … I don’t want to answer that question.”

He later said that “if you are asking me whether I am worried that Israel has taken action that might be in breach of international law … yes, of course I am worried about that. That is why I consult the Foreign Office lawyers when giving this advice on arms exports.”

Other UK ministers have previously claimed that Israel has abided by international law. In late November, business secretary Kemi Badenoch said on Sky News that “we’ve always said that Israel should abide by international law, and that appears to be what they have done … It looks like they have taken great pains to make sure that they’re staying within the confines of the law. We applaud them for that.”

Labour has repeatedly called for the government to be transparent about the legal advice it has received.

On 22 March, David Lammy MP, the shadow foreign secretary, wrote to Cameron, calling on him to publish the legal advice on Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law.

On 26 March in the House of Commons, Lammy asked the minister for development and Africa, Andrew Mitchell MP, if the foreign secretary had received legal advice saying there was a clear risk that items licensed by the UK might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law. Mitchell said “no government do[es] that”, adding later that “we do not disclose our internal legal advice”.

Last week, the international court of justice ordered Israel to allow inimpeded access of food aid into Gaza, where huge numbers of people are facing imminent starvation. Cameron has repeatedly voiced his frustration at Israel’s action in blocking aid from crossing the border into Gaza.

The war began on 7 October after Hamas launched an attack inside Israel that killed more than 1,100 Israelis, mostly civilians, and took about 250 people hostage.

Israeli military attacks on Gaza have resulted in the death of more than 32,000 people, the majority women and children, according to local health authorities.

A Foreign Office spokesperson said: “We keep advice on Israel’s adherence to international humanitarian law under review and ministers act in accordance with that advice, for example, when considering export licences. The content of the government’s advice is confidential.” ..’

See also my blogs below:

‘The UK Government is under a positive duty to ensure compliance by Israel with International Humanitarian Law’.
– ‘5 questions MPs can ask to test the legal necessity of calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza so that Israel can comply with IHL.’
– ‘A violation of International Humanitarian Law can give rise to a private law remedy actionable in the English Court.’

See also:

‘The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians has issued Prime Minister Rishi Sunak with a stark warning that UK government officials could be individually liable for their role in aiding and abetting Israeli war crimes. Sunak has been issued with the notice of intention to prosecute UK government officials, for their role in providing military, economic and political support to Israel, which has aided Israel’s perpetration of war crimes. …
[This] could lead to UK government officials being prosecuted for war crimes by Scotland Yard. Individuals could also be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. …
The UK government has provided military assistance and economic and political support. Now that war crimes have been carried out, continuation of such support and assistance would mean that UK Government officials would be complicit in the commission of war crimes and potentially crimes against humanity. This complicity, formally known as ‘aiding and abetting’ war crimes, may mean that UK government officials are individually criminally liable for breaking international law.’

See paras 10 – 14 – ‘The operational responsibility for deciding whether to commence or pursue a criminal investigation falls to the police, who exercise their discretion and responsibility to investigate independently of the executive. The war crimes team of the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command (SO15) is responsible for the investigation of all allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture. Any allegations received by other police forces will be referred to SO15 for investigation. … The Crown Prosecution Service, Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division (SCCTD) has responsibility for prosecuting any such crimes. The Crown Prosecution Service also takes decisions independently of the Government. While maintaining their operational independence, both the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service will, where appropriate, liaise with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for advice on diplomatic handling.’

So, provided the jurisdictional threshold is met, what defence or immunity is potentially available if as Alicia Kearns allegedly said – ‘the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make’?

‘Murder of unarmed civilians waving white flags + Concealing Murder by bulldozing their bodies into rubbish + Famine through deliberate starvation of an entire civilian population.’

This is how the Zionist state of Israel has behaved following the UN Resolution call for an immediate ceasefire.

There must be an immediate call for sanctions – see my blog – ‘Hierarchy of Sanctions for non-compliance with a binding resolution of the UN Security Council’, on the ‘Negotiating Political Order’ page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com

The UNSC must also resolve to send a force of peace-keepers & humanitarian workers into Gaza, under the protection of armed soldiers wearing ‘blue helmets’, who are authorised to use lethal force against the IDF, in order to save civilian lives.

The UNSC has the power to order this because Israel is acting in breach of a binding resolution.

Unless immediate action is taken by the UNSC to enforce its binding resolution v. Israel, by ordering sanctions, then the future of the international rules based order is in jeopardy.

The vote needs to be held before the ceasefire expires.

If this is done & any state exercises a veto & continues to supply arms to Israel, then by holding the vote, those states in favour, will in effect, have placed the heads of any officials and political leaders of the vetoing state, on the legal block, for a future a war crimes court/tribunal.

In other words, by vetoing a resolution which called for sanctions, that was evidentially based upon the behaviour of the IDF over the last 24 hours, those decision-makers (i.e. officials and political leaders of the vetoing state), will have provided further evidence, if it was needed, of complicity in Genocide. Assuming of course, that the ICJ decide that Israel has committed genocide.

Of that, I am in no doubt.

The evidence against Israel is overwhelming & mounting by the hour –
Google:

‘UN agency warns “time is running out” to prevent famine in besieged and bombarded Gaza, urges Israel to lift aid restrictions immediately. Footage obtained by Al Jazeera shows unarmed Palestinian men – one repeatedly waving a piece of white cloth in a sign of surrender – before Israeli troops shoot them dead and then bury their bodies with a bulldozer near Gaza City.’

  • ‘They scream in hunger’ – How Israel is starving Palestinians in Gaza | Israel War on Gaza News | Al JazeeraThe UN must not only save Israel from itself, the Jewish diasapora from what Zionist zealots are doing in their name, but also set the Palestinian people free from their brutal and inhuman oppressors. There is only side in this conflict – the International Rule of Law. When you apply the rule, there is only one place for the perpetrators of war crimes, murder and genocide – prosecution in a court of law with jurisdiction and the power to do justice in the name of mankind.

Envisioning Ethnic Cleansing & Genocide in Gaza as a real estate opportunity for Zionists? – For once I am speechless! – What do you conclude from the evidence about what Israel is doing & selling?‘’

See Jared Kushner says Gaza’s ‘waterfront property could be very valuable’ | Jared Kushner | The Guardian

‘His remarks at Harvard gave a hint of the kind of Middle East policy that could be pursued in the event that Trump returns to the White House, including a search for a normalisation deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

“Gaza’s waterfront property could be very valuable … if people would focus on building up livelihoods,” Kushner told his interviewer, the faculty chair of the Middle East Initiative, Prof Tarek Masoud. Kushner also lamented “all the money” that had gone into the territory’s tunnel network and munitions instead of education and innovation.

“It’s a little bit of an unfortunate situation there, but from Israel’s perspective I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up,” Kushner said. “But I don’t think that Israel has stated that they don’t want the people to move back there afterwards.”

Masoud replied that there was “a lot to talk about there”.

Kushner also said he thinks Israel should move civilians from Gaza to the Negev desert in southern Israel.

He said that if he were in charge of Israel his number one priority would be getting civilians out of the southern city of Rafah, and that “with diplomacy” it could be possible to get them into Egypt.

“But in addition to that, I would just bulldoze something in the Negev, I would try to move people in there,” he said. “I think that’s a better option, so you can go in and finish the job.”

He reiterated the point a little later, saying: “I do think right now opening up the Negev, creating a secure area there, moving the civilians out, and then going in and finishing the job would be the right move.”

The suggestion drew a startled response from Masoud. “Is that something that they’re talking about in Israel?” Masoud asked. “I mean, that’s the first I’ve really heard of somebody, aside from President Sisi [Egypt’s leader], suggesting that Gazans trying to flee the fighting could take refuge in the Negev. Are people in Israel seriously talking about that possibility?” …’

See also:

‘Who is politically driving and financing the slaughter of Palestinians’

Yesterday Al Jazeera broadcast ‘Praying for Armageddon’ – Why evangelical Christians influence US foreign policy in the Middle East | Witness Documentary (youtube.com)

Evangelical Christian Zionists believe in the 2nd coming of Christ at Armageddon i.e. in the destruction of civilization on earth at the end times – which some of them believe they can accelerate so that this happens during their lifetimes by supporting Israel.

‘Christians United for Israel [‘CUFI’] conceals a very right wing agenda that is driving this violence [against Palestinians]/ [CUFI] is permeating geopolitical factors which can lead to what they believe is the battle of Armageddon. Permeating policies that arm Israel to the teeth with US weapons [to] drive the Palestinians out of Jerusalem.[They are] ultimately pushing toward more conflicts in the Middle East. CUFA Has 10m members. There are more than 80m Evangelical Christians in the US = ¼ of US voters. [As the film makers claim – no politician can be elected in America with the support and endorsement of this group]. In 2021 CUFA lobbied to secure 3.3 Billion USD in military aid to Israel.’ [Fast forward to 33m].

See my blogs at www.diplomaticlawguide.com:

On the ‘Understanding Conflict & Mediating Settlement’ page:

  • ‘Can Biden & Sunak prevent the slaughter of women & children in Rafah?’
  • ‘Is Zionism a form of white  colonial settler supremacy?

On the ‘Geopolitical Challenges & Dynamics’ page:

  • ‘What fundamental Zionist beliefs drive Joe Biden’s foreign policy toward Israel?’

On the ‘Negotiating Political Order’ page:

  • ‘Gaza – Is the way forward the creation of a single normal secular state for both Israelis and Palestinians?’
  • ’15thPrinciple of Negotiating Political Order – In order to get a participant to really think about the philosophical basis and legitimacy of their position you need to speak to them in the language of their own source of reference.’
  • Ethical decision-making based upon principles of natural law.’
  • ‘Understanding Conflict & Mediating Settlement.’ – In which I noted:

 ‘Jo-Ann Mort of ‘Americans for Peace’ describes the collaboration between American Jews & the Christian Right as an ‘unholy alliance.’ The Israeli moderate Yossie Alpher has warned that Christian support for continued settlement expansion is ‘leading us into a scenario of out-and-out disaster.’ He told CBS News – ‘God save us from these people.’ The Israeli-American scholar Gershom Gorenberg notes that ‘dispensationalist’ theology does not foresee a happy fate for Jews: in the end-times ‘the Jews die or convert. … Christian Zionists don’t love real Jewish people. They love us as characters in their story, in their play … [and] it’s a five act play in which the Jews disappear in the fourth act.’ So, who is manipulating whom?’

For a discussion of how reason can prevail over religious fanaticism see ‘The idea of Geopolitical Mediation’ on the ‘Geopolitical Mediation & Peace Building’ page.

This is a strategy that I will develop and discuss in my book to be written in 2025 – ‘Understanding Conflict & Mediating Settlement.’

‘Who are the Evangelical Chrisitan Zionists & what is their influence over US Foreign Policy?’

See:

‘Can Biden & Sunak prevent the slaughter of women & children in Rafah?’

As a Political Science graduate from a leading school of Political Science, International Relations & Diplomacy [Keele Top 3 in England for Politics – Keele University], an Accredited Mediator, the founder of www.diplomaticlawguide.com  – 10 years ago, and as an author, I have an interest in ‘Understanding Conflict & Mediating Settlement.’ This is the planned title of my next book, to be written in 2025.

For more about studying Political Science & International Relations at Keele see also:

Amongst my followers on LinkedIn are a number of former and serving Diplomats, members of NGO’s, University Lecturers and Professors of Political Science and International Relations, Journalists, serving & retired members of the UK Parliament (including Ministers), and some well-known Broadcasters.

Addressing that audience, I draw their attention to:

  • My blog on the ‘Geopolitical Challenges & Dynamics’ page – ‘What fundamental Zionist beliefs drive Joe Biden’s foreign policy toward Israel?’
  • Ward, Alexander (2024) The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore American Foreign Policy After Trump, pages 84 & 85.

[Obviously I do not know and therefore cannot comment on the truth & accuracy of this account and Alexander Ward’s source. Biden can and may deny what Ward has narrated, and I sincerely hope that Biden did not use the words reported by Ward in his book. So, this needs to be investigated by professional Journalists who can then invite Biden to confirm of deny the account narrated on pages 84 & 85 of this new book by Alexander Ward. Until then, I will keep an open mind and not make any judgment about Biden].

Joining-up the dots, I wonder if investigative journalists in the US and UK will ask the following questions:

Q. To President Biden:

  • ‘Mr President as a lawyer, you know that under International Law the execution of women & children is prohibited.

[See my blog ‘Execution of unarmed civilians by the IDF’ below].

  • Have you read the account narrated by Alexander Ward on pages 84 & 85 in his new book “The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore American Foreign Policy After Trump?”
  • If the former Prime Minister of Israel, the late Menachem Begin did in fact says  what Alexander Ward has reported, do you not agree that the killing of women & children was a red-line for Israel in 1982?
  • In which case, will you openly state to Benjamin Netanyahu that if the IDF enter Rafah and slaughter women & children, that the United States will cut-off the supply of all arms, finance and aid to Israel – because this is also a “Red-Line” for the United States of America in 2024?’

Q. To Prime Minister Rishi Sunak:

  • ‘Prime Minister – Have you listened to the discussion: The West in Decline – John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen (youtube.com) [at 12 Minutes] ‘I didn’t believe it …. I contacted somebody who knows. They told me it is true. [We have today] just 40 operational tanks.’
  • So, my 1st question is – how many operational/serviceable tanks do we in fact have today?
  • My 2nd question is – how many UK taxpayer pounds have been spent in providing aid and arms to Ukraine since July 2023?
  • My 3rd question is – how many UK taxpayer pounds have been spent in providing aid and arms to Israel since July 2023?
  • If the IDF enter Rafah and commence the slaughter of women & children will you suspend the supply of all aid arms and parts to Israel?
  • If not, then can you explain why British taxpayers are financing and facilitating the slaughter of women & children in Gaza, in breach of International Law?
  • Should British taxpayers’ money be used instead, to re-build our own armed forces, whose numbers have been depleted to historically low levels during the 14 year term of your Government?’

‘The escalating risk of nuclear war in Ukraine  – Do Biden, Macron & Sunak understand this?’

‘[For Russia] Crimea is an absolute red line, and right now there is some talk amongst Western analysts that NATO allies are going to help Ukraine retake Crimea. If that’s it, it is an almost certainty that Putin is going to use tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield.  …  Trust is absolutely shattered right now. … Russian intelligence services have made the assessment that President Biden is cognitively impaired and cannot be trusted. …

[Q. from the interviewer – what needs to happen to prevent undesired escalation especially after President Macron’s very fiery comments and the possibility that he could send troops to Ukraine. Could that escalate into war?]

A. ‘Yes. If any NATO country deploys troops into theatre Putin interprets it as the whole of NATO i.e. Article 5. … So if Putin destroys those troops we are in a direct kinetic war. Putin has a pre-emptive doctrine and won’t wait until NATO overwhelms Russia. There is a concept called strategic initiative in Russian war fighting doctrine and that can only be achieved by pre-emption. If Russia waits too long it is lost. They believe that Ukraine is part of Russia and that NATO would be attacking Russia. That is what triggers the nuclear doctrine.’

See/Google – Putin’s Playbook – His Next Move w/ Rebekah Koffler (youtube.com)

[Rebekah Koffler was a senior intelligence official focusing on detecting and helping neutralize foreign threats to America. Working for the Defense Intelligence Agency and with the CIA National Clandestine Service, Rebekah has led ‘red’ teams during war games and briefed the Pentagon, the White House, and NATO on Russian wartime doctrine and President Putin’s intentions. In Putin’s Playbook, published in July 2021, Rebekah predicted Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that was launched by Vladimir Putin in February 2024. The war is unfolding, consistent with Rebekah’s forward-looking intelligence estimates and Russia’s doctrine and strategy described in her book].

For more commentary on Russia’s ‘Red-Lines’, see also:

[‘Russia is not bluffing!’]

Note that in his interview, former US Ambassador Chas Freeman stated his belief that if the collective West triggers Russia’s premptive nucear doctrine, i.e., if France/Poland deploy troops to Ukraine, that Russia will skip over the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and will engage directly with metropolitan Europe and the US, by firing ‘strategic’ i.e. long range nuclear weapons which are capable of destroying cities.

If you have not read it, I recommend –  ‘2034: A Novel of the Next World War’ (2022) by Elliot Ackerman  and Admiral James Stavridis USN. (Available from Amazon). The book depicts exactly that scenario in a future war between China and the US.

‘Understanding Putin & Russia’

‘Moral force in Foreign Policy is not possible without visionary leadership tempered by realism’

See:

‘Twin disasters for Biden in Ukraine & Gaza.’

See:

‘New Definition of Extremism in UK’

Today in Parliament MP’s are debating a new definition of ‘extremism’ proposed by the Government. This comes one day after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak refused to return a £10m donation by a donor to the Conservative party, whom he openly acknowledged had made ‘racist’ remarks about black women. See:

In legislating for a new definition of ‘extremism’ parliamentarians need to be wary, and careful that they do not throw the baby out with the bathwater, by proscribing criticism of what Israel is doing in Gaza, the US neo-cons have done in Ukraine, and about the catastrophic influence on US, and by proxy UK foreign policy, of Evangelical Christian Zionists – who believe in the 2nd coming of Christ at Armageddon, i.e. whose ultimate objective is Armageddon. Do you not think that exerting any political influence in order to bring about Armageddon, i.e. nuclear war, is not only harmful to the national security interests of the UK but is also ‘extremism’? The question is, why are MP’s not discussing this. Michael Gove did not even mention Zionists. Parliamentarians must not allow wool to be pulled over their eyes. It will be interesting to hear expert commentary about whether this new definition applies to donations made by Zionists (including Evangelical Christian Zionists) through the Israel Lobby, to UK MP’s and political parties.

Note that ‘Zionism’ is not ‘Judaism’– see:

It will be interesting to hear expert commentary about whether this new definition applies to donations made by Zionists (including Evangelical Christian Zionists) through the Israel Lobby, to UK MP’s and political parties.

I wonder if anybody will ask Michael Gove, who used to be a journalist, to:

(i) Confirm whether under the new definition, ‘Zionism’ has been prescribed as being an ‘extreme’ ideology, and therefore that all members of the government of Israel are extremists?

(ii) Disclose the names of any member of the UK Government, who has received any donation or contribution, from the Israel Lobby, including e.g. the payment of travel and accomodation expenses to visit Israel?

If Michael Gove declines to provide an unequivocal, comprehensive, and logically reasoned answer to those questions, then I further wonder, whether or not under the new definition, any person who ‘partners’ with the government of Israel, e.g. any member of the Israel Lobby in the UK who is an apologist for violence committed by Zionists in Gaza, might after the ICJ have ruled on the genocide case proceeding against Israel, be at risk of prosecution in the UK, for inciting genocide by seeking to excuse/normalise the killing of unarmed civilians by the IDF. See my blog below – ‘Execution of unarmed civilians by the IDF.’

If that risk exists/crystalises, then apologists for Israel will need to be very careful about what they now say in relation to the behaviour of the IDF and members of Benjamin Netanyahu’s extreme right wing Zionist government – No?

Again, it will be interesting to hear what expert commentators conclude about the application of the new definition to Zionists in the UK – which of course will include both individuals and organisations.

Perhaps one day, in the not too distant future, this will be tested in an English court?

See also my blogs below:

‘Execution of unarmed civilians by the IDF.’
– ‘Israeli troops massacre unarmed civilians collecting food in Gaza – 29.02.2024.’
– ‘War Crime of execution – Rome Statute of the ICC.’
– ‘International Humanitarian Law prohibits the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.’
–  ‘Israel is systematically destroying the infrastructure of society throughout Gaza in breach of IHL.’
– ‘South Africa’s case is legally watertight.’
– ‘Complicity In International Law.’
– ‘Prosecution of individuals in UK courts for international war crimes?’

and:

[Go to 5:28 – During a closed session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joe Biden shocked Israeli Prime Minister Menachim Begin by saying, ‘I would go even further than you. I would be willing to kill women and children’, Quoted Source: ‘The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore American Foreign Policy After Trump’ (2024) by Alexander Ward].

[Note also that on Saturday on ‘Witness’, Al-Jazeera news is running a special documentary about the influence of Evangelical Chrisitan Zionists on US foreign policy, and by proxy on UK foreign policy].

‘In understanding conflict a Mediator must understand who is ‘pulling the strings’ and the ‘ideological source of their power’. These need to be brought to the surface because the underlying logic cannot be examined, understood, probed, and rigorously ‘reality-tested’ by an educated Mediator, while they remain submerged or are camouflaged. For an example in relation to Gaza, see pages 126 – 142 of ‘The Israel Lobby And US Foreign Policy’ by John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt, who discuss ‘the origins of Christian Zionism which lie in the theology of dispensationalism, an approach to biblical interpretation that emerged in nineteenth-century England … and may have made British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour more receptive to the idea of creating a Jewish national home in Palestine.’ Note that Jo-Ann Mort of ‘Americans for Peace’ describes the collaboration between American Jews & the Christian Right as an ‘unholy alliance.’ The Israeli moderate Yossie Alpher has warned that Christian support for continued settlement expansion is ‘leading us into a scenario of out-and-out disaster.’ He told CBS News – ‘God save us from these people.’ The Israeli-American scholar Gershom Gorenberg notes that ‘dispensationalist’ theology does not foresee a happy fate for Jews: in the end-times ‘the Jews die or convert. … Christian Zionists don’t love real Jewish people. They love us as characters in their story, in their play … [and] it’s a five act play in which the Jews disappear in the fourth act.’ So, who is manipulating whom? A Mediator may therefore legitimately ask the question – ‘For whom and for what are members of your armed forces dying?’ I also recommend that you read ‘The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’ & ‘Ten Myths about Israel’, by the Jewish Professor of History, Ilan Pappe.’

‘Is Zionism a form of white colonial settler supremacy?

To understand what Zionism is, see:

‘The Palestinian people have been denied the exercise of their legal right to self-determination through the more than century-long violent, colonial, racist effort to establish a nation State exclusively for the Jewish people in the land of Mandatory Palestine. When this began after the First World War, the Jewish population of that land was 11 per cent8. Forcibly implementing Zionism in this demographic context has necessarily involved the extermination, or forced displacement of, some of the non-Jewish Palestinian population; the exercise of domination over, and subjugation, dispossession and immiseration of, remaining.’

[Go to 5:28 – During a closed session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joe Biden shocked Israeli Prime Minister Menachim Begin by saying, ‘I would go even further than you. I would be willing to kill women and children.’ Quoted Source: ‘The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore American Foreign Policy After Trump’ (2024) by Alexander Ward].

‘Is the US preparing to quietly leave Ukraine?’

Is the writing on the wall for Zelensky? See:

Meanwhile, is Biden keeping the war in Ukraine on life support until the Presidential election in November for his own benefit, and not for the benefit of Zelensky and Ukraine? See:

‘Is pressure from within the US Foreign Policy establishment gathering momentum to rein in Israel and stop the haemorrhaging of American credibility?’

Writing today in the influential US International Relations journal – ‘Foreign Affairs’, in an article entitled – ‘How to End America’s Hypocrisy on Gaza’, Sarah Yager who is Washington Director at Human Rights Watch, and from 2016 to 2018 served as the first Senior Adviser on Human Rights to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the U.S. Department of Defense, wrote:

‘The Biden Administration Must Assess Israel’s Conduct—and Hold It to Account. Some might argue that the United States can afford a little hypocrisy in order to support its longtime ally Israel. But playing a part in the erosion of international law will have harmful consequences for the United States far beyond Gaza. Future declarations by the State Department concerning atrocities will ring hollow, making it harder to hold perpetrators accountable and deter future international crimes. Pressure on warring parties to abide by the laws of war in other places—for example, Azerbaijan or Sudan—will carry less weight. In the eyes of the world, it will become harder to distinguish the United States from countries that outright dismiss international law and intentionally undermine the rules-based international order through their actions. To start reining in Israel and to stop the haemorrhaging of American credibility, the Biden administration needs to task its lawyers to assess all available information—classified and unclassified—on Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and determine when and where Israeli forces have violated the laws of war, and whether the IDF held those responsible to account. Their findings should be made public, and the evidence presented to Congress. While those assessments are happening, Israel should be put on notice that U.S. military aid is at risk. The political costs of looking squarely at the evidence and correcting U.S. policy as necessary won’t be comfortable for a president and legislators on the campaign trail. But those costs are lower than the cost of U.S. authorities acting as if the acute suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza does not deserve the same scrutiny as the suffering of civilians in other conflicts, a stance that gives ammunition to those who claim that, when it comes to applying core American principles and protecting basic human rights, Washington applies an obvious—and obviously hypocritical—double standard.’

I wonder what impact these views will have on the policy of the UK Government and Labour Party, as in less than three weeks time Israel must report to the ICJ and South Africa may make further submissions which could result in the ordering of more specific provisional measures. Whilst the US has vetoed any resolution against Israel in the UN Security Council it is fast approaching a cross-roads and so is President Biden whose latest approval rating was 38.6% [07.02.2024].

How to End America’s Hypocrisy on Gaza | Foreign Affairs

Following the ICJ ruling will Rishi Sunak confirm that future arms sales to Israel have been suspended?’

‘What makes the Government’s refusal to suspend arms sales even more horrifying is that Israeli officials have been quite open about their intent in Gaza. At the beginning of the assault, an Israeli military spokesperson said that “the emphasis” of bombing was on “damage and not on accuracy”.
Another official promised to turn Gaza into a “city of tents”, while the former head of the Israeli National Security Council said that the aim was to make Gaza “a place where no human being can exist.” The National Security Minister said that the only thing that should enter Gaza is “not a gram of humanitarian aid” but “hundreds of tons of explosives”. More recently, an Israeli Minister said that the war would be “Gaza’s Nakba”, which is a reference to the 1948 catastrophe in which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their homes and never allowed to return. Given that stated intent, and actions to match it, UN experts have warned of a “genocide in the making”. Let us be clear: if this is a genocide in the making, British-made weapons are almost certainly part of making that genocide happen. … Israel’s assault on Gaza has been carried out with the Government’s unequivocal support and with British-made weapons. … Following Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in 2014, which human rights organisations said violated international law, the Conservative-led coalition Government undertook an investigation into arms sales to Israel, finding that those arms could have been used by the Israeli military in Gaza. That resulted in the Government committing to suspend sales if Israel resumed its military assault.’ [Hansard – Extract from the speech by Zara Sultan MP (12.12.23).].

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-12-12/debates/BF12F435-8E9A-44B0-AA34-ADA9D01616E0/ArmsExportLicencesIsrael

As today the ICJ accepted the case and Israel is now on trial for Genocide, those facts appear to impute to any person supplying arms to it, and to any politician who approves an export licence, ‘constructive knowledge’ that arms may be used to perpetuate genocide. Therefore, following the ICJ ruling, every such person is now on actual notice that if they do so, they may be investigated and prosecuted for ‘complicity’ in a core international crime. I wonder whether at PMQ’s, any MP will ask Rishi Sunak to confirm that following today’s ruling, no further export licences for the sale of arms to Israel will be approved by his government? The board of directors of any British company involved in the supply of arms and parts to Israel, are legally under a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their shareholders. Presumably they will make an independent commercial decision which will take into account the reputational risk of being investigated and prosecuted for supplying arms with constructive knowledge of use in genocide? Today’s ruling therefore has far reaching implications.

See also:

UK arms export licences to Israel in the dock (france24.com)

Selling Weapons to Israel Could Make UK Complicit in War Crimes | Human Rights Watch (hrw.org)

UK government faces legal challenge over arms exports to Israel | Israel-Gaza war | The Guardian

CDP-2023-0223.pdf (parliament.uk)

License to Kill: The Israel-Gaza Conflict and the UK’s Arms Exports Regime (justsecurity.org)

 

‘5 questions MPs can ask to test the legal necessity of calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza so that Israel can comply with IHL’

Article 49, Fourth Hague Convention [Google – ‘IHL Treaties – Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians 1949’] states:
‘Deportations, transfers, evacuations – Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. … Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated. … The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.’ The term ‘forced’ is not limited to physical force. ‘It may also include the threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment”. The essential element is that the displacement be involuntary in nature, [i.e.] that the relevant persons had no real choice. …’ [International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Simic et al., (Judgment), Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Chamber II (17 October 2003), para 125.
So, this week, when MPs debate whether the United Kingdom should call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, they can ask 5 questions to test the legal necessity of Israel agreeing to an immediate ‘humanitarian’ ceasefire so that it can comply with IHL:
·       ‘What accommodation has been provided by Israel to receive displaced Palestinians?’
·       ‘What has Israel done to ensure satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition for displaced Palestinians?’
·       ‘What has Israel done to ensure that members of the same family are not separated as a result of the illegal i.e. “forced” displacement of Palestinians?’
·       ‘What is Israel doing to ensure that civilians taking refuge in hospitals under attack are not being detained?’
·  ‘How can Israel transfer displaced Palestinians back to their homes after hostilities have ceased, if their homes have been bombed i.e. no longer exist?’
For statistics Google – ‘Israel-Gaza war in maps and charts: Live Tracker’ + Aljazeera

A violation of International Humanitarian Law can give rise to a private law remedy actionable in the English Court

‘Law Debenture Trust Corp Plc v. Ukraine [2023]UKSC 11 – Can a threat by one foreign state [‘S.1’] to use physical violence against civilians of another foreign state [‘S.2’] and a threat  to damage property in S.2 constitute duress under English Law?’
‘Where a contract is governed by English law, the English courts can entertain the defence of duress raised by a sovereign state [S.1] based on threats by another state [S.2] to use physical violence towards the armed forces and civilians of the threatened state and threats to damage or destroy property in the threatened state. Such threats can constitute duress under English law.’ (‘Duress, Undue Influence and Unconscionable Dealing’ by Nelson Enonchong (2023) Fourth Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, p.15).
At 147, their Lordships stated:
‘In argument, counsel for Ukraine maintained that Ukraine’s case on duress was based on the fact of the threats, that is to say on the nature of the acts which were threatened, rather than on their treatment under international law. On that basis, counsel characterised Ukraine’s case in relation to the threatened use of force as being based on duress of the person and of goods. Although counsel for the Trustee understandably emphasised that Ukraine’s case had not been pleaded in that way, the characterisation of this aspect of its case as one of duress of the person and of goods can be regarded as a change in the legal analysis of the facts pleaded rather than a different case on the facts. Defective pleadings which can be cured by amendment are not necessarily struck out without affording the pleader the opportunity to cure the deficiency, and the court has a wide ambit of discretion in this regard. The same principle also applies in the context of an application for summary judgment. In the present case, any trial of the action remains some considerable way off. We are also mindful that the law of duress has been the subject of significant clarification during the course of these proceedings. With all these factors in mind, we are prepared to consider Ukraine’s case based on alleged duress of the person and of goods. Any prejudice to the Trustee arising from Ukraine’s change of tack, and its failure to argue its case on the same basis in the courts below, is capable of being addressed in costs.’
Since equitable compensation ‘is a remedy by which the court of equity award substantial compensation for loss which the complainant has suffered as a result of the defendant’s equitable wrong … [it] is available even in a transaction where no property was transferred or none is required to be returned through rescission … Equitable compensation is a remedy which may be available in its own right in the absence of rescission … Equitable compensation seeks to restore the parties financially to the status quo ante.’ (Enonchong, para 28-064).

The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc (Appellant) v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) (Respondent) – The Supreme Court

‘Combatting the illicit trade is stolen antiquities is linked to global peace’

Article 2 of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property [‘UNESCO 1970’] states:
‘1. The States Parties to this Convention recognize that the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property is one of the main causes of the impoverishment of the cultural
heritage of the countries of origin of such property and that international co-operation constitutes one of the most efficient means of protecting each country’s cultural property against all the dangers resulting there from.
2. To this end, the States Parties undertake to oppose such practices with the means at their disposal, and particularly by removing their causes, putting a stop to current practices, and by helping to make the necessary reparations.’

‘There is international recognition that States should assist one another to prevent the unlawful removal of cultural objects including antiquities. … By Article 2 [UNESCO 1970] the parties recognise that the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property is one of the main causes of the impoverishment of the cultural heritage of the countries of origin, and that international cooperation constitutes one of the most efficient means of protecting each country’s cultural property, and the parties undertake to oppose such practices with the means at their disposal.’ (Lord Phillips CJ at: 155, 157 in Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Barakat Galleries Ltd [2007] EWCA 1374).

‘Market’ and ‘Source’ countries share a common interest in combatting the global illicit trade in antiquities because it is linked to the drugs trade and terrorist financing, see the Report of the Ministerial Advisory Panel On Illicit Trade, December 2000. So, when a popular TV news anchor says ‘I simply don’t get it!’ what they are not ‘getting’ i.e. understanding and seeing, is the ‘big picture’ i.e. the geopolitical consequences of these three illicit trades fuelling each other, because they are all linked through organised criminal activity.

Cultural Heritage Diplomacy (‘CHD’) is a diplomatic forum/arena in which the UK working together with the United States and the EU, can provide global leadership. Cultural Heritage Diplomacy is at the heart of EU foreign policy, Google – ‘A new strategy to put culture at the heart of EU international relations’. ‘This field is in dire need of strong moral and political leadership. … It is only through mutual understanding of each other’s cultural and national identity that humankind can progress, as a global village, toward a more harmonious future. … Acting through the United Nations [state actors] should make a concerted effort to stop the invidious market in illegal art. No one benefits from these acquisitions. In the end, we all lose, because with each stolen artefact or piece of cultural property, we, as a community of nations, hinder UNESCO’s attempts at promoting mutual understanding through cultural education and exchange. It is only through such mutual understanding that nations can truly come to a greater knowledge of what makes us at the same time so different, yet so similar.. … [Diversity] of understanding is the root of what will lead to a more peaceful and more productive world community.’ (Shinn, John P. ‘A new world order for cultural property: addressing the failure of international and domestic regulation of the international art market’, 34 Santa Clara L.Rev 977 (1994), pp.978 & 1005).

‘Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court’

States retain the primary responsibility in the prosecution of international crimes. Under the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977, States must prosecute people accused of war crimes before their own national courts or extradite them for trial elsewhere.

The International Criminal Court (‘ICC’), headquartered in the Hague, exercises a complementary jurisdiction in respect of international crimes, and may take up a case when either:

  1. a State is unable or unwilling to prosecute the suspects, which include former and serving:
    1. heads of state;
    2. government ministers;
    3. public officials;
    4. military, intelligence, and police personnel of any rank;
    5. members of a paramilitary group; and
    6. civilians; or
  2. the Court is requested to initiate proceedings by the UN Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

The ICC is an independent international organisation, and is not part of the United Nations system. To download the ICC guide, ‘Understanding the International Criminal Court’ please click on this link*.

The jurisdiction of the ICC is limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, including war crimes.

The ICC also has jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, which include a range of acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.

Together, this includes most of the serious violations of international human rights law covered by the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols, whether committed during an international or non-international armed conflict.

The ‘crime of aggression’, also mentioned in the Statute, was not defined during the establishment of the Court, but will come within the ICC’s jurisdiction once it is.

Contrary to other international courts, the ICC may take action against individuals but not States.

However, nothing in the ICC Statute releases States from their obligations under existing international humanitarian law or customary international law.

War Crimes

‘All war crimes are crimes for which there is universal jurisdiction, so that any State can prosecute them. The most authoritative and convenient, list of war crimes, committed in international or internal armed conflicts, is now to be found in the ICC statute. The defence that an accused was acting under the order of a superior is available only in very limited circumstances.’ Handbook of International Law, by Anthony Aust (formerly legal advisor to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office).

Article 8 (‘War Crimes’) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court states,

  1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes. 2.         For the purpose of this Statute, “war crimes” means:

(a)     Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

(i)     Wilful killing;

(ii)     …inhuman treatment…;

(iii)     Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

(iv)     Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

(vi)     Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

(vii)     …unlawful confinement;

(viii)     Taking of hostages.

(b)     Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(i)     Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

(ii)     Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

(iii)     Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv)     Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

(v)     Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

(vi)     Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

 (ix)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

 (xii)     Declaring that no quarter will be given;

(xiii)     Destroying or seizing the enemy’s property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

(xvi)     Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

(xvii)     Employing poison or poisoned weapons;

(xviii)     Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;

(xix)     Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;

(xx)     Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

(xxi)     Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

 (xxiv)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

(xxv)     Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

 (c)     In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:  

(i)     Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(ii)     Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(iii)     Taking of hostages;

(iv)     The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.  

(e)     Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:  

(i)     Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

(ii)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

(iii)     Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

(v)     Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

 (x)     Declaring that no quarter will be given;

 (xii)     Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;

  1. Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.

‘Prosecution of individuals in UK courts for international war crimes?’

Sky News reported at 11.30am today – ‘Israel-Hamas war: UK could be complicit in Gaza war crimes, Tory MP warns – Crispin Blunt, who is co-director of a pro-Palestinian group, told Sky News he is not sure his colleagues in Westminster are aware of the “legal peril they are in”. He spoke as Israel faces criticism for ordering more than a million people in Gaza to leave their homes. The UK could be complicit in war crimes in Gaza and could face legal action if it does not do more to “restrain” Israel, Tory MP Crispin Blunt has warned. The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) – of which Mr Blunt is co-director – announced it has written a notice of intention to prosecute UK government officials for “aiding and abetting war crimes in Gaza.” The move comes in response to Israel’s warning for 1.2 million people living in the northern part of the Gaza Strip to immediately leave their homes and move south. Mr Blunt told Sky News he is “not sure [his] colleagues have grasped the legal peril they are in” and “everyone must act to restrain people” if they know war crimes are going to happen. “If you know that a party is going to commit a war crime – and this forcible transfer of people is a precise breach of one of the statutes that governs international law and all states in this area – then you are making yourself complicit,” he said.” And as international law has developed in this area, the fact of being complicit makes you equally guilty to the party carrying out the crime.”’

Note – ‘Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (Advisory Opinion) [2004] ICJ Rep 36 paras 158-159:
‘It follows from that provision that every State party to that Convention, whether or not it is a party to a specific conflict, is under an obligation to ensure that the requirements of the instruments in question are complied with … [and] … In addition, all States parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 are under an obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.’

So, under international law, the UK Government is under a positive duty to ensure compliance by Israel with IHL. See also my comment about International Armed Conflicts [‘IAC‘s’] and the possibility of criminal prosecutions being brought against individuals who are either arrested in the UK or extradited to the UK, to face prosecution for War Crimes, in a trial that will take place in the UK courts.

With respect to IAC‘s – ‘all states are obliged , pursuant to the Grave Breaches provisions of the Geneva Conventions, to domestically criminalise such violations, and seek out and either extradite or prosecute those violations.’ [Oxford Handbook of International Humanitarian Law (2020), by Ben Saul & Dapo Akande (Oxford University Press), p.355].

So, if any person sets foot on UK soil who was involved in any War Crime committed during an IAC, it would appear that as an individual, they are at risk of being arrested and prosecuted in a UK court for War Crimes. That would appear to include any person, who either directly or indirectly, has been complicit in a breach of IHL which amounts to a war crime.

Therefore, if, as senior foreign policy experts in the United States have warned in the journal Foreign Affairs this week, the conflict in Gaza becomes an IAC, i.e. because it escalates into a regional conflict, then it also appears to be possible, that with the permission of a future Attorney-General, private prosecutions could be brought against any individual, who does not have diplomatic immunity, who is either arrested in the UK, or can be extradited to the UK, to face charges in a War Crimes trial that will take place in the Old Bailey.

 

Cultural Heritage Safe Zones

Could Cultural Heritage diplomacy be a neutral method of mediating a ceasefire to create a network of humanitarian corridors, i.e. by designating certain areas as “Cultural Heritage Safe Zones” and linking them up?’ As the war in Ukraine has brought into sharp focus, there is no one who today can effectively provide any observance of the International Humanitarian Law Rules. No international peacekeeping mission is possible, because Russia is blocking Security Council action. Therefore, the designation of an area as a ‘Cultural Heritage Safe Zone’ is linked to issues:
(i) the powers and procedures of the UN Security Council; and
(ii) reform of the UN Security Council.

See:

‘There is still time.’ The Vatican assesses its influence as war breaks out in Ukraine. (religionnews.com)

Vatican Diplomacy – Diplomat Magazine

The Vatican and International Diplomacy on JSTOR

Vatican Secret Diplomacy (culturaldiplomacy.org)

New book ‘God’s Diplomats’ unveils the secret history of Vatican diplomacy | National Catholic Reporter (ncronline.org)

No Fly Zones

‘Air power can only be used effectively to coerce or deter if it is used in accordance with these ends. It can be called in to support a force on the ground and attack the targets indicated by the force as threatening it; and it can react to any aircraft ignoring the NFZ [No Fly Zone] and shoot it down. If it is to deter or coerce, then the opponent has to believe that targets that matter to him will be struck effectively, even if they are not necessarily those that he is risking in battle. He must also believe that you will escalate if you do not succeed in getting him to succumb at first, and that the outcome would be to his disadvantage. One is in effect negotiating by threatening or using force, in confrontation not conflict.’(‘The Utility of Force – The Art of War in the Modern World’ [2005], p.345 by General Sir Rupert Smith (former Deputy Supreme Commander (DSACEUR) in NATO. All territorial airspace is considered as coming within the purview of International Humanitarian Law [‘IHL’]. ‘IHL provides that certain areas within the territory of a party to the conflict (or in any other territory) may be rendered off-limits to military activity, through designation of the area as a demilitarised zone, a neutralised zone, and undefended locality (or safe zone), or a hospital or safety zone. Thus, IHL provisions and protection still apply, but these zones are not to be made the location of hostilities. Non-defended localities can be any town, village, dwelling, or building which is declared to be an undefended place. … Neutralised or demilitarised zones may also be established by parties to a conflict. … Demilitarised zones are outlined in article 60 of API and are intended to protect civilians living within such zones from attack by parties to the conflict. The provisions for establishing a demilitarised zone are similar to those for an undefended locality: however, demilitarised zones can only be created by agreement of the parties to the conflict. As the ICRC Commentary to the Protocols notes, the “essential character of the zones created in article 60 … [is] that they have a humanitarian and not a political aim; they are specially intended to protect the population living there against attack.”‘ (The Oxford Guide to International Humanitarian Law (2020) edited by Ben Saul and Dapo Akande), p.67. In international armed conflicts, international humanitarian law applies as soon as an armed conflict exists between states. The formal declaration of war is not required. Therefore, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to the invasion of a sovereign state by another state actor. The toolbox for humanitarian intervention includes the imposition of ‘humanitarian’ no-fly zones. An undefended locality can be estatblished unilaterally. Attacking a UN safezone is a breach of the rule of law. See also the ‘Humanitarian Mediation’ page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com.

See also:

‘Are Principles of Humanity under International Humanitarian Law a diplomatic tool in mediating a peace process and agreement?’

Introduction

In this essay the author argues that:

  • Cultural Heritage is part of our shared humanity.
  • Cultural Heritage is entwined with UNESCO’s broader mandate concerning human rights, the rule of law, development, and peace.
  • The duty of a state to protect Cultural Heritage (‘CH’) is quintessentially a fiduciary duty under International Humanitarian Law (‘IHL‘). The underlying premise is that every civilized society is a fiduciary of humanity, and so are their governments.
  • Intentional destruction of cultural heritage is an unjustifiable offence to the principles of humanity.
  • Destruction of CH is not only a war crime under IHL it can also be a political mistake – that is the paradox of Machiavelli’s Principle of Survival(‘MPS’).
  • If the destruction of CH has the potential to politically destabilise the aggressor (‘H’ i.e. a Hegemon), then it follows that  surrounding states in the region (‘SIR’s’) also have a national security interest in the survival of H.
  • Therein, and counter-intuitively, lies the seed of a principle that can result in the mediation of terms of peace which ensure the survival of both H and the sovereign state invaded by H. If this geo-political interest is recognised by all parties to the conflict and their supporters, that could open the door to a mediated dialogue using cultural heritage as a language of diplomacy, to negotiate a ceasefire and peace agreement.
  • This is where a non-partisan Non-State Actor (‘NSA’) e.g. an NGO, can play an instrumental diplomatic and mediation role.

Strategic importance of Cultural Heritage

In the frequently quoted words of the 1954 Hague Convention, cultural property is ‘the cultural heritage of all mankind.’[i] In other words, Cultural Heritage it is part of our shared humanity. Therefore, we all have a common interest in preserving and protecting cultural property everywhere.

Cultural Heritage is entwined with UNESCO’s broader mandate concerning human rights, the rule of law, development, and peace.[ii]

‘Annihilation of cultural heritage is gradually evolving into an issue of peace and security in the 21st century. Destructive ideologies are not new in history, as the UNESCO Strategy, entitled ‘Reinforcement of UNESCO’s Action for the Protection of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of Armed Conflict’, acknowledges; but today “threats to cultural heritage in the event of armed conflict result from intentional destruction, collateral damage, forced neglect, as well as from organised looting and illicit trafficking of cultural objects … [on] an unprecedented scale.”[iii] Intentional destruction of cultural heritage by extremist non-State actors, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, the so-called Islamic state (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, or Daesh) in Syria, Iraq, and Libya, or Boko Haram in Nigeria, may be seen as part of “ideological warfare against cultural property.”[iv] …’[v]

Cultural identity is considered to part of human dignity. It is linked to human rights because cultural heritage is of crucial importance to individuals and communities as part of their identity. As cultural heritage requires memory, this applies to both tangible and intangible heritage, because material and physical heritage needs to be placed in both a historical and cultural context, in order to understand its value.

‘The cultural heritage of a people is not limited to the tangible expressions of art, architecture, religion, poetry, or writing in general but also includes its intangible heritage, which is transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity. More generally, cultural heritage includes the expressions of the people’s spirituality, and the body of values which give meaning to life’  (Francioni & Vrdoljak‘, p 77).

Duty to protect

The author’s thesis, is that when ‘Art’ (‘A’) is of cultural significance, i.e. is recognised as being ‘Cultural Heritage’  (‘CH’), it forms part of a recognised heritage. If then in either a narrow or a broad sense, it becomes part of civilization and a record of human evolution (i.e. part of the consciousness and collective memory of mankind), public duties do or should attach to possession. In particular, the possessor (‘P’) who owns A that is also CH, is also a custodian of the CH. In which case, duties attach to possession, e.g. a duty to preserve and protect the cultural property (‘DP). DP also applies to an underwater archaeological site, because as the French Archaeologist Salomon Reinach famously remarked, ‘The sea is the largest museum in the world’.  If P is a state, these duties extend to protecting the CH in the event of war. Therefore, DP is quintessentially a fiduciary duty under IHL.  The underlying premise is that every civilized society is a fiduciary of humanity, and so are their governments.[vi] This also highlights the existence of a potential intersection between: (i) ‘principles of humanity’ under IHL; and (ii) the existence of ‘fiduciary duties’ on state actors under foundational principles of international law – see Criddle & Fox-Decent (2009).

The paradox of Machiavelli’s Principle of Survival

In the 16th century, the strategist and political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli wrote that ‘he who becomes a master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it, for in rebellion it has always [been] the watchword of liberty and its ancient privileges as a rallying point, which neither time nor benefits will ever cause it to forget.’ (‘The Prince’, Chapter V – ‘Concerning The Way To Govern Cities Or Principalities Which Lived Under Their Own Laws Before They Were Annexed.’)(1532). In other words, if you really want to destroy a people, its pride, it self esteem, and its sense of belonging to its own cultural identity, you need to destroy its cultural heritage, otherwise you will not be able to dominate. (‘Machiavelli’s principle of survival’) [‘MPS’].

‘The real target of most acts of intentional destruction of cultural heritage is therefore, not the heritage in itself but the human communities for which such a heritage is of special significance.’ (‘Mens Rea of Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage’, by Federico Lenzerini, Chapter 4 of the Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law’ (2020), Oxford University Press, page 77).

Analysing the psychology of an invasion through the hard geo-political lens of ‘Offensive Realism’ (see Mearsheimer 2014), if an invading sovereign state is a hegemon or an aspiring hegemon) (‘H’), and the political logic underlying invasion is survival, then since a hegemon must dominate in order to survive, there is a paradox, because PA requires the destruction of CH. In other words, to achieve its political objectives, H must destroy part of itself.

Therefore, invasion may be a political mistake[vii]. The miscalculation is that instead of H becoming stronger it will actually weaken itself, because by invading a state with a shared cultural heritage, H will to an extent destroy its own cultural identity. If that happens then over time, institutionally H may become unstable and ungovernable, resulting ultimately in the political break-up of H. In other words, institutionally, the destruction of cultural heritage by H is an act of political self-destruction.

The existential question for H then becomes, how do they end the war without ending up being in a worse position than they were in before it, in order to:

(i) preserve the status quo within H itself; and

(ii) restore the balance of power (i.e. the status quo ante) between H and other hegemons and aspiring hegemons in the region/world, including H‘s political allies –  who may pursue their own self-interest at the expense of H, if H becomes politically unstable, i.e. by annexing territory that H can no longer politically control because its military capability and economy have been weakened.

If the author is right, then the calculus of risk by H is a dynamic that can influence a decision by H to end a war by positively engaging in mediation.

Intentional destruction of cultural heritage is an unjustifiable offence to the principles of humanity

‘The destruction of heritage, and prohibition of cultural behaviours are used by certain conflict actors as “shaping operations”, where violence against the “Other” becomes normalised as communities, either incrementally or at once, lose their property, freedoms, and humanity. Culture is a shared set of values, ideas, and behaviours that enable a social group to function and survive. Cultural heritage maintains identity, social cohesion, and a sense of security through intangible practices, including rituals, music, language and skills, and tangible property such as artefacts, archaeology and places. Roosevelt’s four  freedoms link cultural behaviour – to freedom from fear and want. Targeting cultural heritage is an act of power that legitimises one group while diminishing others and is often a precursor for the most offensive form of cultural destruction: genocide.’[viii]

Hence, there is an unspoken connection between:

  1. the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage as a strategy by an invading force in war and occupation;
  2. ethnic cleansing; and
  3. genocide.

The intentional destruction of cultural heritage is an offence against humanity as a whole.[ix] Article II.2 of the 2003 UNESCO Declaration concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage (17 October 2003) states:

‘For the purposes of this Declaration “intentional destruction” means an act intended to destroy in whole or in part cultural heritage, thus compromising its integrity, in a manner which constitutes a violation of international law or an unjustifiable offence to the principles of humanity and dictates of public conscience, in the latter case in so far as such acts are not already governed by fundamental principles of international law.’

In other words, the intentional destruction of cultural heritage is an unjustifiable offence to the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience.

Principles of Humanity

Whether IHL can bring warring P‘s together in an ‘offensive realism’ paradigm depends upon the answer to the following questions:

  • Do universal ethical values exist under IHL as ‘Principles of Humanity’ [‘principles’][x].
  • What are these principles.
  • In the real world, could these principles be used in mediation as potential building blocks of a peace process, protocol, and agreement – i.e. are they a sufficient basis for starting a ‘difficult’ conversation that can eventually transform attitudes and each P’s Political Doctrine [‘PD’], resulting in the negotiation of a sustainable and enduring Peace Treaty.

The philosophical pillars of universal Principles of Humanity under IHL, are two classical doctrines:

(i) obligations ‘erga omnes’; and

(ii) ‘jus cogens’.

Although it can be said that jus cogens rules consist of rules stipulating erga omnes obligations, it is not axiomatic that erga omnes obligations constitute jus cogens. While there is an overlap between: (i) obligations erga omnes; and (ii) jus cogens rules, the IHL principles and norms that can be derived from the nexus between these doctrines in relation to Cultural Heritage suffer from a lack of scholarly formulation, definition and classification.

Therefore the answer to the first question is yes. However because the formulation of these principles and their philosophical basis under IHL, requires further research[xi], the answer to the second question is almost a blank canvass.The answer to the third question depends upon whether these principles align with H’s political interest in the preservation of CH, as destruction of CH is ultimately an act on institutional self-destruction. So, in theory, because, by definition preservation of CG is common ground,  the door is open for a form of Mediation to take place through Cultural Heritage Diplomacy.

Conclusion

There is a tension between the:
(i)      common ground represented by a shared cultural heritage, including a set of ethical, philosophical and religious values/beliefs; and
(ii)      political ambitions and objectives (‘PA’) that drive military strategy in war.

A logical corollary of MPS, is that where  an invading state and an invaded state share a common cultural heritage i.e. CH, that the invader must destroy part of itself in order to achieve its political objective(s), i.e. its PA.

Arguably, Principles of Humanity under IHL are a powerful diplomatic tool in mediating a peace process and agreement, because violation, i.e. the impact of war on CH, may adversely sway public opinion within H and weaken support for the war.

When the political strategy of H is to create a failed state i.e., where it has failed in its primary objective to turn the invaded state into a client state, then the preservation and protection of cultural heritage in the invaded state, is also arguably elevated to the level of being a threat to the national security of any other state in the region (‘SIR’), because there is a risk of a failed state emerging within SIR‘s geo-political sphere of influence.

If the destruction of CH has the potential to politically destabilise H, then it follows that SIR also has a national security interest in the survival of H.  Therein, and counter-intuitively, lies the seed of a principle that can result in the mediation of terms of peace which ensure the survival of both H and the sovereign state invaded by H. If this geo-political interest is recognised by all parties to the conflict and their supporters, that could open the door to a mediated dialogue using cultural heritage as a language of diplomacy, to negotiate a ceasefire and peace agreement. This is where a non-partisan NSA e.g. an NGO, can play an instrumental diplomatic and mediation role.[xii]

Bibliography

Blake, Janet On Developing a New International Convention for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, Art Antiquity & Law, Vol VIII, Issue 4, 381, December 2003. (‘Blake’).

Bowling, Daniel (Editor) & David Hoffman (Editor) (2003), Bringing Peace Into the Room: How the Personal Qualities of the Mediator Impact the Process of Conflict Resolution, Jossey-Bass. (‘Bowling et al’).

Carstens, Anne-Marie & Elizabeth Varner (2020), Intersections In International Cultural Heritage Law, Oxford University Press. (‘Carstens & Varner’).

Chalcraft, Jasper Into the Contact Zones of Heritage Diplomacy: Local Realities, Transnational Themes and International Expectations, International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society (published online 05.01.2021). (‘Chalcraft).

Clack, Timothy & Mark Dunkley (2022) Cultural Heritage in Modern Conflict, Past, Propaganda, Parade, Routledge. (‘Clack & Dunkley’).

Cloke, Kenneth (2019) The Crossroads of Conflict – A Journey Into the Heart of Dispute Resolution,  Goodmedig Press. (‘Cloke’).

Criddle, Evan J. & Evan Fox-Decent (2016) Fiduciaries of Humanity – How International Law Constitutes Authority, Oxford University Press. (‘Criddle & Fox-Decent (2016)’).

Criddle, Evan J. & Evan Fox-Decent A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens, The Yale Journal of International Law, Vol 34: 331-387. (Criddle & Fox-Decent (2009)’).

Criddle, Evan J, Miller, Paul B. & Robert H. Stikoff, editors (2019) The Oxford Handbook of Fiduciary Law, Oxford University Press. (‘Criddle, Miller & Sitkoff’).

Durbach, Andrea & Lucas Lixinski (2019) Heritage, Culture And Rights – Challenging Legal Discourses, Hart. (‘Durbach & Lixinski’).

Francioni, Francesco & Ana Filipa Vrdoljak‘ (2020) The Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law, Oxford University Press. (‘Francioni & Vrdoljak‘).

Grant, Adam (2021) Think Again – The Power Of Knowing What You Don’t Know, Penguin Books. (‘Grant’).

Goold, Benjamin J. & Liora Lazarus (2019) Security And Human Rights, Hart Publishing. (‘Goold & Lazarus’).

Gozzi, Gustavo (2019) Rights and Civilizations – A History and Philosophy of International Law, Cambridge University Press.(‘Gozzi’).

Iverson, Jens (2021) Jus Post Bellum: The Rediscovery, Foundations, and Future of the Law of Transforming War into Peace, Brill Nijhoff. (‘Iverson’).

Jervis, Robert (2017) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton University Press.(‘Jervis (2017)’).

Jervis, Robert (2017) How Statesmen Think – The Psychology of International Politics, Princeton University Press.

Jervis, Robert (2017) How Statesmen Think – The Psychology of International Politics, Princeton University Press. (‘Jervis (2019)’).

Kim, Jihon (2022) Non-State Actors in the Protection of Cultural Heritage: An Analysis on Their Rights, Obligations, and Roles, Springer-Verlag. (‘Kim’).

Mearsheimer, John J. (2014) The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics (Updated Edition), Norton. (‘Mearsheimer (2014)’).

Mearsheimer, John J. (2019) The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities (Henry L. Stimson Lectures), Yale University Press. (‘Mearsheimer (2019)’).

Mearsheimer, John J. (2023) & Sebastian Rosato How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy, Yale University Press. (‘Mearsheimer & Rosato’).

Milton, Patrick, Michael Axworthy and Brendan Simms (2018) Towards A Westphalia for the Middle East,C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd. (‘Milton et al’).

O’Keefe, Patrick J. (2017) Protecting Cultural Objects: Before And After 1970, Institute of Art & Law. (‘O’Keefe’).

Paterson, Robert J ‘Protecting Taonga: The Cultural Heritage of the New Zealand Māori’, 8 Intnl J. Cultural Prop. 108 (1999). (‘Paterson’).

Powell, Jonathan (2014), Talking To Terrorists – How to end armed conflicts, Vintage. (‘Powell’)

Randolph, Paul (2016) The Psychology of Conflict, Bloomsbury. (‘Randolph’).

Ury, William (1999) The Third Side – Why We Fight And How We Can Stop, Penguin Books. (‘Ury’).

Saul, Ben & Dapo Akande (2020) The Oxford Guide To International Humanitarian Law, Oxford University Press.(‘Saul & Akande’).

Shinn, John P.  ‘A new world order for cultural property: addressing the failure of international and domestic regulation of the international art market’, 34 Santa Clara L.Rev 977 (1994). (‘Shinn’).

Simpson, Moira Museums and restorative justice: heritage, repatriation and cultural education,  Museum International, Vol 61, No.1-2, 2009 (UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd). (‘Simpson’).

Slaughter, Anne-Marie ‘Every day global governance’, 132 Daedalus 83 (2003). (‘Slaughter’).

Stamatoudi, Irini ‘Mediation and cultural diplomacy’, 61 Museum Int’l 116 (2009). (‘Stamatoudi’).

Strother, Grant ‘Resolving Cultural Property Disputes in the Shadow of the Law’,  Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 2014, Vol19:335.(‘Strother’).

Tsagourias, Nicholas & Alasdair Morrison (2023) International Humanitarian Law – Cases, Material And Commentary, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press. (‘Tsagourias & Morrison’).

Weatherall, Thomas (2015) Jus Cogens – International Law and Social Contract, Cambridge University Press. (‘Weatherall’).

[i] This has a philosophical root in the western liberal theory of cultural property internationalism ‘A related claim is a critique of the nationalist position, namely that cultural heritage is a fluid concept and hence claims to total sovereignty are arbitrary. The position is less that there is no national claim to territorial cultural property, but rather that a balance should be struck between sovereignty and shared access to what is viewed by the cultural property internationalists as a common cultural heritage of humanity. Support for these claims are likewise evident from Article 4 UNESCO 1970, which includes in the definition of “cultural heritage” both “cultural property which has been the subject of a freely agreed exchange,” and “cultural property received as a gift or purchased legally with the consent of the competent authorities of the country of origin of such property.” These provisions seem to reflect an idea that cultural property can be attributed to a cultural heritage beyond the territory of its origin, and also acknowledges the value in protecting other states’ provision of access to cultural property of foreign origin.’ (Strother, p.358).

[ii] ‘Culture is [also] a key element of operational understanding. Operations of both the British and US militaries in Afghanistan and Iraq taught hard lessons: culture is critical. Culture is a driver and motivator of people. It is also a medium for communication and a means to achieve military effect. It can also shape and define the Information Environment. Culture, as a component of military planning is one of four key human factors that shape the operating environment. Put simply, culture determines how people interpret and orientate themselves to that environment.’ Clack & Dunkley, p.301 – An interview with Captain Mark Waring. These are the words of Captain Waring.

[iii] UNESCO General conference, ‘Reinforcement of UNESCO’s Action for the Protection of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of Armed Conflict (2 November 2015) UNESCO doc 38/C/49. See also UNESCO General Conference, ‘Strategy for the Reinforcement of UNESCO’s action for the protection of culture and the promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of Armed Conflict’ (24 October 2017) UNESCO doc 39/C/57, para 1.

[iv] Kirsten Schmalenbach, “ideological Warfare Against Cultural Property: UN Strategies and Dilemmas” 19 Max Planck  YB UN L 1.

[v] Carstens & Elizabeth Varner, p.82.

[vi] Note also that ‘fiduciary principles play a prominent role in the international law of occupation. As one leading scholar has observed, the foundational principle upon which the entire law of occupation is based is the principle of inalienability of sovereignty through unilateral action of a foreign power. Accordingly, when a state establishes effective control over foreign territory, its international legal status is conceived to be that of a trustee who exercises only temporary managerial powers until the occupation ends. … An occupant also bears a variety of proscriptive fiduciary duties. It must respect unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. … Nor may an occupant confiscate private property, [or] destroy property without military necessity. … Moreover the occupant serves only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, [and] real estate … belonging to the hostile state, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct, avoiding wasteful or negligent destruction of the capital value … Contrary to the rules of good husbandry. … For centuries, international lawyers and statesmen have endorsed the principle that a state’s sovereign authority is held in trust for the benefit of its people.’ (Criddle, Miller & Sitkoff, pp.356 & 358-9).

[vii] In a proxy war, where a hegemon (‘H‘) is a liberal democracy acting in support of a strategic asset (‘SA’), aggression by SA in breach of IHL not only undermines the integrity of the international rules based order where a Nelsonian blind eye is turned to violation, it can also turn SA into a ‘liability’ which can sway public opinion in H, who demand that support for SA cease.

[viii] Clack & Dunkley, p.301 – An interview with Colonel Rosie Stone. These are the words of Colonel Stone.

[ix] ‘[It] seems to have been forgotten that even wars have limits.

The so-called “Hague-Law”, which regulates the use of means and methods of warfare so as to mitigate, as much as possible, the “calamities of war”, is the oldest branch of IHL. It’s basic tenet can be summarised in three fundamental maxims, namely: (i) that “the only legitimate object which states should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken military forces of the enemy”; and that therefore, in pursuing this aim, both (ii) “the right of the parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited”; and (iii) “[t]he civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations.”’ (Saul & Akande, p.235).

[x] Primary sources include:

  • Hague Convention II, Convention (II) with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land (adopted 29 July 1899, entered into force 4 September 1900):-

‘Preamble …

Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and requirements of the public conscience.’

  • Additional Protocol 1, Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977 (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978):-

1(2) – In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.’

  • International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia – Prosecutor v. Kupreskic et al., (Judgment), Case No. IT-95-16-T, Trial Chamber (14 January 2000).

The following is an extract from Tsagourias & Morrison, pp43 & 44:

‘On the issue of humanity and how it assists in the interpretation of IHL, the Chamber held as follows:

  1. More specifically, recourse might be had to the celebrated Martens Clause which, … Has by now become part of customary international law. True, this Clause may not be taken to mean that the ‘Principles of Humanity’ and the ‘Dictates of Public Conscience’ have been elevated to the rank of independent sources of international law, for this conclusion is belied by international practice. However, this clause enjoins, as a minimum, reference to those principles and dictates any time a rule of international humanitarian law is not sufficiently rigorous or precise: in those instances, the scope and purport of the rule must be defined with reference to those principles and dictates.’
  • Danish Ministry of Defence, Defence Command Denmark, Military Manual on International Law Relevant to Danish Armed Forces in International Operations (2016, updated 2020), chapter 4:-

‘The principle of humanity expresses a fundamental prohibition against the infliction of suffering, injury, or destruction that is not actually necessary for the accomplishment of legitimate military purposes. The principle also implies the basic requirement of humane treatment. … There are three aspects to the principle of humanity. The first aspect concerns the fact that belligerents are limited in their use of means and methods of warfare. … The second aspect of the principle of humanity is the requirement that certain precautions – for instance, in the choice of means and methods – must be taken in connection with the planning and execution of attacks and in the defence against attacks. … The third aspect of the principle concerns a minimum standard for the humane treatment of any person who is held in the custody of the belligerent state.’

  • ‘The key to understanding international jus cogenslies in a much neglected passage of The Doctrine Of Right, where Immanuel Kant discusses the innate right of humanity which all children may assert against their parents as citizens of the world. Drawing on Kant’s account of familial fiduciary relations, our theory of jus cogens posits that states exercise sovereign authority as fiduciaries of the people subject to state power. An immanent feature of this state subject fiduciary relationship is that the state must comply with jus cogens.’ (Criddle & Fox-Decent (2009), pp.353 – 354 (Kant’s Model of Fiduciary Relations).

[xi] An additional consideration should be devoted, as well, to unpacking the fiduciary model’s consequences for future litigation to enforce alleged jus cogens violations, including such threshold concerns as standing, sovereign immunity, causes of action, compulsory jurisdiction, forums, and remedies. … Addressing these questions will be essential to determine the specific legal consequences that flow from a breach of jus cogens.’ (Criddle & Fox-Decent (2009)).

[xii] For example in mediating a ceasefire, in order to create a network of humanitarian corridors, i.e. by designating certain areas as ‘Cultural Heritage Safe Zones’, and then linking them up, so as to create a matrix, which in effect brings about a cessation of military operations throughout a conflict zone.

Humanitarian & Transformative Mediation Resources

Mediation of Peace Process & Agreement Resources

* to view pdf files you will need a suitable viewer, if you need to download one click on the link of your choice below: