Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: UK Rewrites War Crimes Law At Israel’s Request

UK Rewrites War Crimes Law At Israel’s Request
Written by Richard Irvine
Posted: 05 October 2011 12:35
 
Legal mechanisms developed after the end of the Second World War to more 
easily prosecute war criminals are now being taken off the books to 
preserve Israeli impunity from accountability.
 
In the aftermath of the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes an outraged 
international community demanded justice — a demand that resulted in the 
Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 
and the introduction of the new legal concept of universal jurisdiction. 
Justice, it seemed, would be impartial and hiding places for criminals 
scarce.
 
Universal jurisdiction is a simple concept. Deriving its authority from 
Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, it places an obligation upon 
all states “to respect and ensure respect” for the laws of war, 
effectively requiring all states to prosecute suspected war criminals 
regardless of where the crimes were committed.
 
In reality, however, universal jurisdiction has rarely been invoked. 
This absence of enforcement in a world replete with war crimes and 
crimes against humanity may seem more than a little peculiar but is 
easily explained. In the vast majority of states the decision to 
investigate and prosecute lies with the state-controlled institutions of 
the police and public prosecutor’s office, and these unfortunately, 
unless they are politically sanctioned to do so, do not spend time 
investigating crimes committed elsewhere.
 
Consequently, when suspected war criminals travel abroad they travel 
with virtual impunity; the preparatory investigations needed to 
establish a case against them having simply not been done. Until mid 
September, however, there was one country where war criminals stood a 
fair chance of having their day in court.
 
In the UK the judicial system allowed private parties and individuals to 
present their own evidence of war crimes before a magistrate who could 
then, if he or she felt the case was strong enough, issue a warrant for 
the suspect’s arrest. Consequently, in 2005 retired Israeli General 
Doron Almog only escaped arrest by skulking in his plane before being 
flown back to Israel, while in 2009 Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni 
cancelled her trip rather than face arrest. Other senior Israeli figures 
simply chose to stay away from Britain.
 
Sadly on 15 September this means of potentially achieving justice was 
revoked. In response to Israeli protests the UK government chose to 
change its laws rather than see Israelis arrested. In a move condemned 
by Amnesty International, the UK government amended the law on universal 
jurisdiction so that in future only the Director of Public Prosecutions 
can authorize the arrest of a suspected war criminal (“Tories make life 
easier for war criminals,” Liberal Conspiracy, 30 March 2011).
 
Contradictory grounds
 
Oddly, the UK government defended its decision on two contradictory 
grounds. The first reason it put forward is that the evidence used to 
secure the arrests stands little chance bringing about “a realistic 
prospect of conviction.”
 
This is disingenuous, to say the least. As Geoffrey Robertson, a UN 
appeals judge, states: “The change in the law has nothing to do — as the 
UK claims — with ensuring that cases proceed on solid evidence. No 
district judge would issue an arrest warrant lightly (“DPP may get veto 
power over arrest warrants for war crime suspects,” The Guardian, 22 
July 2010).” Secondly, the reason for the arrest is so the suspect 
cannot flee while further evidence is being gathered. Indeed, this is a 
common way for domestic investigations to proceed.
 
The other equally disingenuous reason the UK gave for the change in the 
law is that arresting suspected war criminals may endanger the 
non-existent peace process.
 
This absurd view was advanced by UK Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, 
who decried the previous law because it constituted a risk to “our 
ability to help in conflict resolution or to pursue a coherent foreign 
policy.”
 
Indeed, claiming that the previously granted arrest warrants had been 
politically motivated, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague declared, “We 
cannot have a position where Israeli politicians feel they cannot visit 
this country.”
 
However, the UK’s retreat from the implementation of universal 
jurisdiction is not a lone example of the power of the Israel lobby to 
affect states’ domestic legislation. A similar shameful episode ensued 
when Ariel Sharon was indicted before the Belgian courts, in that 
instance not just Israel but also the United States brought pressure to 
bear, Donald Rumsfeld going as far as to threaten to move NATO 
headquarters from Belgium.
 
Which raises the question, if enforcing international humanitarian law 
is a threat to peace, then why do we have it?
 
A more coherent view was advanced by Daniel Machover, partner at the law 
firm Hickman and Rose: “It is disgusting that the Foreign Office is 
exaggerating the impact on the peace process to get a few people who are 
suspects of very serious international crimes off the hook” (“Ministers 
move to change universal jurisdiction law,” The Guardian, 30 May 2010).
 
Skipping Holocaust dinner to vote
 
Nevertheless, the move to change the law was not unaccompanied by 
controversy, and The Jewish Chronicle reported that in the House of 
Lords the vote was tied 222 to 222 and only passed because one lord, 
Monroe Palmer, former president of the Liberal Democrats Friends of 
Israel group, put off an invitation to attend a Holocaust Education 
Trust dinner (“Universal jurisdiction change becomes law,” The Jewish 
Chronicle, 15 September 2011). That in itself seems odd; surely Palmer 
should have gone and perhaps learned that, to use the Latin phrase, 
“impunitas sempre ad deteriora invitat,” impunity always leads to 
greater crimes.
 
And certainly it is also at odds with the assessment by retired South 
African judge Richard Goldstone that “The lack of accountability for war 
crimes and possible war crimes against humanity has reached a crisis 
point; the ongoing lack of justice is undermining any hope for a 
successful peace process and reinforcing an environment that fosters 
violence” (“Goldstone defends Gaza war crimes report,” Ynet News, 29 
September 2009).
 
Sadly, however, while Ilana Stein of the Israeli foreign ministry 
celebrated — “We are glad that Britain has made the right choice” — it 
seems that the lessons of the Holocaust have still to be learned.
By Richard Irvine
 
02 October 2011
The Electronic Intifada
 
Richard Irvine teaches a course at Queen’s University Belfast entitled 
“The Battle for Palestine” which explores the entire history of the 
conflict. Irvine has also worked voluntarily in Palestinian refugee 
camps in Lebanon and is coordinator of the Ireland-based Palestine 
Education Initiative.
 
http://www.just-international.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4789:uk-rewrites-war-crimes-law-at-israels-request&catid=45:recent-articles&Itemid=123
 
-- 
Sostieni Rete ECO
 
http://rete-eco.it/it/sostienici.html
 
 

 conflict.
 
chissa se spiega come mai