|
'Lawfare' : the ICJ rules in favor of terrorism
Maj. Michael Newton, a military lawyer who teaches at West Point, coined a new term earlier this year: "lawfare." It is the pursuit of strategic aims, the traditional domain of warfare, through aggressive legal maneuvers. Last Friday's decision by the International Court of Justice holding Israel's security fence in violation of international law is another milestone in the onward march of lawfare. The ICJ has now confirmed that lawfare and warfare can be pursued simultaneously...Most of the court's reasoning, based on arguments advanced by British barristers, is superficially plausible--so long as one ignores the actual political context of the dispute. Perhaps the Children's Rights Convention or the Fourth Geneva Convention do provide arguments against disrupting the free movement of innocent Palestinians...In effect, the ICJ now claims that countries beset by terrorism must ignore terror threats and focus on the court's priorities. It is a dangerous precedent for the U.S., which has often contended for interpretations of its rights, under international law, that a majority of U.N. members might dispute. To those who argue that the U.S. should join the new International Criminal Court, because that new court will be moderated in its rulings by the influence of European members, this ruling of an older U.N. court should be sobering.The ruling raises still broader questions about the U.N.'s capacity to contribute to any serious international effort against terrorism. Even U.N. judges, we now see, have other priorities. Long article. I cut and pasted a bit. Raises worrisome questions. Posted by: rex 2004-07-17 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=38333 |