06 Aug One More Reason to Dump the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
The United Nations Human Rights Commission is an easy target for UN critics, but this doesn’t mean that they don’t deserve the disdain and contempt that is usually heaped on them. Case in point: eight UN human rights experts have issued a statement condemning the current US-Russia sponsored “Road Map” talks between Israel and Palestine because the negotiations currently do not fully adhere to the ICJ’s advisory opinion last summer condemning Israel’s wall of separation as a violation of international law.
Now I may not be overly impressed with diplomacy, but I’m far less impressed with idiotic legalistic interventions into a delicate and complex territorial negotiation currently taking place between Israel and Palestine. The last thing these negotiations need is a statement of eight “special rapporteurs” claiming that ongoing negotiations may come into conflict with an advisory opinion issued by the ICJ.
As I’ve suggested before in the context of demands by these same rapporteurs to visit Guantanamo, these special rapporteurs are given fairly broad mandates to opine on anything they want, whether or not the full UN Commission has approved their statements. And, as this rather silly and potentially stupid, intervention suggests, the special rapporteurs may need to be reformed as aggressively as the Commission itself… preferably, out of existence entirely.
One might indeed question the timing of this intervention. It is however quite a different thing to assert that this is an “idiotic legalistic intervention”. The ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the UN, has been consulted by the UN Secretary-General pursuant to Article 69(1) of the UN Charter and the ICJ has delivered it’s advisory opinion. It is quite healthy to question the effectiveness of the ICJ’s power to opine (or the advisory powers of any organisation, for that matter). Obviously this group of legal experts does not rule out that the UN support for the Roadmap to peace is contrary to the ICJ’s advisory opinion. They are reminding the parties involved that the ICJ has considered that: “The construction of the wall being built by Israel (…) and its associated régime, are contrary to international law. (…) [And that a]ll States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction.” This having been said, I want to assure you that I am not blind for the positive contribution of the said wall to Israel’s legitimate… Read more »
I agree with Julian Ku. There are many UN independent experts who do magnificent, vital work. But statements such as this one threaten to doom them to irrelevance–this time, even within the halls of the UN. More, the sloppy and frankly lawless inattention to their proper mandate–even under the most large and liberal interpretation– suggests the system is spiralling out of control. The member states of the Commission are the only ones authorized to reel them in, but suffer from diplomatic timidity or indifference so long as their ox is not the one being gored. It’s worth recalling that this release came on the same day as moderate Arab leaders were urging support for the very negotiations knocked by the rapporteurs. “Implementing the Road Map, which includes Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, is the only way to garner peace and guarantee the rights of all parties to ensure peace and stability in the region,” said King Abdullah in a meeting with visiting Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz. “The Road Map plan — which was drafted by the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations — provides for an independent Palestine at peace… Read more »
The conflict in my homeland, Palestine, can be solved in two ways: Either by letting the balance of forces between the two sides decide the issue (and that’s in essence what the “Road Map” is all about, if stripped of its euphemisms; or let international legal norms be the guideline for a solution, including human rights and UN resolutions. The Palestinian people, the weaker side, have consistently opted for a solution based on legal principles. I am surprised that a lawyer should support a solution based on might and faits-accomplis.
Elias Davidsson
The “Israeli Wall” advisory opinion is one of the most unfair, one-sided opinions ever to come out of any international court. I even wonder if it’s not plainly anti-semitic. I subscribe entirely to Judge Buergenthal magnificent declaration, yet I think he’s too restrained when he says that that Court’s opinion merely “lacks credibility.” The only thing I know is this: if Israel had done what the PC pro-Arab left-wing crowd (mostly European) wanted it to do –to be soft, to negotiate with terrorists, and so on- Israel would have ceased to exist long time ago. Bravo, Israel, and the United states, for hanging on.