Re-thinking the role of international law in the Middle East conflict

[Violet_Crumble]

The fact that international law supports the two-state paradigm is not sufficient reason to preserve its current role, if at present, international law serves to perpetuate the conflict. International law is increasingly being applied when deemed relevant to an ideological agenda, and therefore its impact is limited.

In response to former Justice Edmond Levy’s report on the status of the West Bank, Itamar Mann considers Levy’s controversial proposal that Israel’s presence in the West Bank does not amount to an occupation. Mann’s position is surprising: perhaps easing the collective fixation on the terminology of occupation “will enable us to rethink self-determination for both groups much more ambitiously.” In other words, he is suggesting that abandoning the term “occupation” might indeed open an opportunity to advance the self-determination both societies crave.

Mann thus challenges the way the occupation is conceived. International law holds that territory becomes occupied when it is placed under the authority of a hostile army. Following the recognition of an occupation, the Four Geneva Conventions are applied – these serve to regulate the conduct of armed hostilities and limit its effect. Recognizing occupation in a legal sense entails a host of obligations, ranging from defining the status of the settlements to ensuring the safety of civilians. Rejecting the notion of occupation would limit the application of international law within the West Bank, compromising several of the prescribed protections for the Palestinian population currently in place.

Still, it is worth considering Mann’s proposal, and its ramifications should be debated by lawyers, activists, politicians, and all those affected by or engaged in the conflict. In fact, it’s time to open up the broad question of the effectiveness of international law in general, in its current role within the conflict and the peace process.

A strong case can be made for re-evaluating the role of international law within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Following 45 years of Israeli political, military, and civilian presence in the West Bank, an ongoing cycle of indiscriminate violence, and untold adversity on the lives of all involved, it appears that the grand legal appeals to human rights and self-determination embraced in the latter half of the twentieth century have failed Palestinains and Israelis alike.

http://972mag.com/re-thinking-the-role-of-international-law-in-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/51609/

[Bradlad]

1. I agree with the author.

I have long believed that international law is way behind the curve when dealing with asymmetrical wars. I'm not sure we'd (David and I) agree on the fix - although I'd bet we'd find some common ground.

My largest complaint about existing international law is that it fails to provide any serious deterrent to aggression. Once aggression occurs, the victim must either capitulate or defend itself. Even those on the progressive left must admit that capitulation makes no sense and offers immediate reward for aggression.

But international law places too many barriers in the way of a victim of aggression defending itself - and allows too many rewards to the aggressor.

The spectacularly illogical UN interpretation that no land may be held as the result of war is a case in point. It works against only defenders while allowing aggressors to keep what they conquer (since they won't be forced by any international body to recognize international law anyway). Or, if they lose their aggressive war (as the Arabs have repeatedly done in their several wars of aggression against Israel) - they will still be considered by the UN to have had their sovereignty denied to them and be victims of "occupation".

It's a difficult problem and I'm no expert - just another guy on the internets with an opinion. But I believe the world could do a much better job of making laws and rules that actually prevent wars of aggression rather than make them more likely.

Of course, many on the left see the whole concept of war only through the lens of the I/P conflict - or more broadly through the lens of "Western military colonialism". Whatever rules they'd approve would be rules that would end in Israel (or Western democracies) having less ability to defend themselves against aggression. In fact, for them, wars started by third world aggressors against democracies or their non-democratic allies - are usually excused by the "what else can they do" mantra - as if their control over some disputed territory is some divine right that makes any means to secure it forgivable.

And since Israel is the only party in the I/P conflict that has not started wars of aggression against their opponents - who have started several - then the outlook for any therapeutic changes to the rules where the progressive left would have any effective input is pretty dismal.

[bemildred]

2. Law means nothing without enforcement.

Voluntary compliance with norms is nice, but it is not the rule of law.

[aranthus]

3. Law means nothing

without a legal process for creating, interpreting and enforcing it. That is what international law has always lacked. Which is why it's a bit of a fraud to call it law. A set of contractually agreed upon norms is a better way to look at it.