You are hereBlogs / Stephen Lendman's blog / Universal Jurisdiction to Hold Israel Accountable

Universal Jurisdiction to Hold Israel Accountable


By Stephen Lendman - Posted on 15 August 2010

Universal Jurisdiction to Hold Israel Accountable - by Stephen Lendman

The well-established universal jurisdiction principle (UJ) holds that certain crimes are too grave to ignore, including genocide, crimes of war and against humanity.

Thus, under UJ, nations may investigate and prosecute foreign nationals when their country of residence or origin won't, can't, or hasn't for any reason. Israel used it to convict and execute Adolph Eichmann. A US court sentenced Chuckie Taylor, son of the former Liberian president, to 97 years in prison for torture.

In March 2003, the Special Court for Sierre Leone (SCSL) indicted his father, Charles Taylor, for crimes of war and against humanity. His trial at The Hague's International Court of Justice (ICC) remains ongoing.

Though never held accountable for murdering Chileans and committing other human rights abuses, Britain used a Spanish court provisional warrant to apprehend Augusto Pinochet, hold him under house arrest for 18 months, and set a precedent, making other heads of state and top officials vulnerable. Pinochet's bogus ill health claim sent him home, irreparably damaged and disgraced.

Under Article 7 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg:

"The official position of defendants, whether as Head of State or responsible officials in Government departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment."

No one deserves immunity for high crimes demanding accountability. It's time that applied to America and Israel, the two worst offenders.

In June 2009 at a Madrid, Spain conference, Raji Sourani, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) Director made the case, saying:

"Today, the Gaza Strip lies in ruins" months after Israel's offensive, killing about 1,500, injuring over 5,000, and causing vast destruction - "an illegal form of collective punishment" ongoing for over three years under siege. "For too long now, Israel has been allowed to violate international law with impunity....This situation cannot be allowed to prevail....It is for this very reason that universal jurisdiction is so important....(It) offers hope to victims throughout the entire world, in many cases, it is their only hope." It's long past time to hold Israel accountable.

The Compelling Case for UC

A recent PCHR publication is titled, "The Principle and Practice of Universal Jurisdiction," explaining it in detail with examples, its highlights discussed below.

Though horrific, Cast Lead was just the latest example of decades of Israeli lawlessness - little discussed, unaddressed and unresolved. "Regrettably, this lack of accountability, and the resultant climate of impunity, has been a longstanding feature of Israel's" illegal occupation. "Israel has been allowed to act as a State above the law."

Yet it exists to be enforced. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. However, Palestinians have "limited judicial mechanisms available." According to the 1995 Israel-Palestine Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has no jurisdiction over Israel, including its officials, armed forces members, or other citizens.

Nonetheless, Israel is required to investigate and prosecute its citizens accused of international crimes, a responsibility it's ducked with impunity, a glaring deficiency in its judicial system, exempting war criminals from accountability, in violation of inviolable international standards and principles.

"Justice for Palestinians is not attainable within this system." UJ is the remedy, a "stepping stone (to) universal justice," to protect everyone without discrimination, to address crimes too grave to ignore, to set a precedent for future prosecutions, and warn offenders they're vulnerable.

No accountability encourages criminality, offenders knowing they're safe and can act lawlessly with impunity, especially Israel, shielded by America, the West, and regional indifference or complicity. As a result, Palestinians have suffered grievously for decades, world leaders not giving a damn about their rights or the rule of law, breaking it themselves for not caring.

It's high time UJ principles enforce accountability, using Israel as a test case, including its top government and military officials, guilty of high crimes too grave to be ignored, raising hope for all victims of injustice globally.

Above all, "The pursuit of universal jurisdiction is (the) pursuit of justice. It seeks to ensure an effective remedy for victims - combined with the goal of deterrence - and accountability for those responsible for crimes which 'shock the conscience of humanity.' "

The Applicable Legal Framework

Palestine is belligerently occupied. As a result, international law applies, including the four Geneva Conventions, Hague Regulations, other international humanitarian law (IHL), and Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. As a signatory, Israel is legally bound, including under International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICEPR) provisions such as:

-- Article 2, concerning the right to an effective remedy;

-- Article 14, regarding the right to a fair trial; and

-- Article 26, affirming the right of everyone to protection under the law.

Traditional v. Universal Jurisdiction

Legally, jurisdiction is "the authority of states to prescribe their law, to subject persons and things to adjudication in their courts and other tribunals, and to enforce their law, both judicially and non-judicially," by civil or criminal means.

Five "prescriptive jurisdiction" bases include nationality, territoriality, the protective principle, the passive personality principle, and universal jurisdiction, this discussion focusing on UJ.

It requires "no link of territoriality or nationality between the State and conduct of the offender, nor is the State seeking to protect its security or credit." Only the crime matters, UJ reserved for the worst, ones too serious to go unpunished, their gravity justifying UJ's existence.

Initially for piracy, they were considered outlaws, operating extraterritorially in international waters. Today, international crimes are considered so "threatening to the international community or so heinous in scope and degree that they offend the interest of humanity," all states needing to address them.

However, until post-WW II, UJ applied only to piracy and slave trading, thereafter to genocide, crimes of war and against humanity, as established by the Nuremberg Charter and Judgment, now defined by the ICC to include systematic attacks against civilians, including murder, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer, false imprisonment, torture, rape, sexual slavery, collective punishment, enforced disappearance, and apartheid.

Guilty parties are considered hostis humani generis - enemies of mankind. War crimes are against the jus gentium - the law of nations, international law established to address them.

The International Law Commission's (ILC) principle VI of the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, determined that crimes of war and against humanity "rise to the level of international crime," now recognized under customary international law.

A national court exercising UJ acts not in its name, but for the international community - only when responsible countries won't, can't or haven't. In other words, as a last resort.

In addition, various post-WW II Conventions, including the four Geneva ones and their Common Article 1 obligates all High Contracting Parties to "respect and ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances;" namely, to apply its principles universally, requiring High Contracting Parties "search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts."

At Nuremberg, the concepts of individual and command criminal responsibility were addressed, the Tribunal Principles holding that "(a)ny person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment....(c)rimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit (them) can the provisions of international law be enforced."

The Rome Statute's Article 25 of the ICC codified this principle, affirming the culpability of persons committing crimes of war and against humanity. In addition, commanders and their superiors are specifically culpable if they "either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such crimes, (and) failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecutions."

Nuremberg established that immunity is null and void, including for heads of state, other top officials, and top commanders. In addition, genocide, crimes of war and against humanity are so grave that statute of limitation provisions don't apply.

Final Comments

UJ is to ensure that individuals committing high crimes are held accountable, essential under the rule of law. Otherwise, it's meaningless. All too often, however, populations, like the Palestinians, are abused for many decades, Israel getting away with mass murder and other grave breaches of law.

As a result, UJ is the only alternative, national courts willing to use it an essential judicial remedy. It's high time they take the first step to universal justice, sending a powerful message that crimes this egregious won't stand, no matter who commits them or shares responsibility.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Tags

Universal Jurisdiction, War Crime and Israel

In October 1998, General Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator who presided over a 17-year reign of terror and who ordered foreign assassinations, was arrested at the London Bridge hospital on an Interpol warrant – at the request of the Spanish authorities - which alleged that between 1973 and 1983 Pinochet’s regime committed atrocities including genocide and terrorism.

It was the first arrest of a former head of state travelling on a diplomatic passport on British soil and was issued as a result of investigations into human rights violations in Chile and Argentina. That was over 20 years ago.

Now the British government, under pressure from the state of Israel, is proposing to alter the provisions of the existing legislation that allows Universal Jurisdiction rights for a citizen to apply to the courts for the arrest of any person suspected of being complicit in the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity, committed anywhere in the world.

Such a change, if implemented, would allow, for example, an Israeli minister or soldier alleged guilty of being implicated in war crimes in Gaza, as alleged by the UNHRC Goldstone Fact-Finding Report, to be allowed free access to Britain and immunity from arrest. That Report alleged the killing of over 900 Palestinian civilians including 300+ children and 100+ women.

It cannot be right that persons alleged to be guilty of war crimes, by an arm of the United Nations, should be allowed to land in Britain and to walk our streets free from arrest; to address meetings and to negotiate with members of our parliament.
Such proposed changes to the law should be vigorously opposed by Parliament, as an outrage and as an affront to human rights, international law, and the democratic process of a free society.

To ignore allegations as serious as that of war crime is to collude in extreme violence and death, dressed-up in the guise of self-defence and collateral damage in order to avoid justice.

The deliberate killing of unarmed civilians is a war crime as is the deliberate destruction of hospitals, food and water supplies, power stations and other civilian targets, as defined by the Geneva Convention on Human Rights which has been ratified by all member states of the European Union and over 133 other states worldwide.

COLIN DALE, London
________________________________________

Extract from the 4th Geneva Convention

Detained civilians must at all times be humanely treated
(Geneva III, art. 13, Geneva IV, art. 27).
Protected civilians must be:
Protected against acts or threats of violence,
Specially protected, for example in safety zones, if wounded, sick, old, children under 15, expectant mothers or mothers of children under 7.

• Detainees may be questioned, but any form of “physical or mental coercion” is prohibited
(Geneva III, art. 17; Geneva IV, art. 31)

1977 Protocols

• Protocol I adds explicit protections to outlaw attacks on civilians and civilian targets.
• Prohibits the attacking of food and water supplies
• Protocol II adds explicit protections to civilians during a civil war. Prohibits collective punishment, pillage, terrorism, and hostage-taking and attacks on basic needs for civilian survival such as crops, drinking water supplies and irrigation systems
________________________________________

It would be great to see UJ applied to Israel and I can picture a number of US Presidents and military commanders UJ would apply to.

I think it's from an article by Stephen Lendman that was posted a day or two ago here that he said that the UN HCR announced that it will hold an inquiry regarding Israel's criminal assault on the Free Gaza flotilla on May 31st and that he said that UNSG, Sec. Gen., Ban Ki-moon subsequently and at the start of this month announced an inquiry that is to counter the UN HCR's move; the inquiry will or would clearly be favorable only for Israel. Then Turkey said it will hold its own inquiry; evidently in reaction to Ban Ki-moon's announcement of a corrupt inquiry.

I wonder if UJ is related to the above inquiries at all; especially the one headed by Ban Ki-moon. An inquiry is not a trial, so I guess the answer is no, but am not sure if it's totally unrelated.

Maybe someone should apply UJ to Ban Ki-moon for this corrupt, criminal inquiry move of his, albeit not really of his making.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.