Tag: Current Events

To understand genocide as a class of calculated crimes, such crimes must be appreciated as goal-oriented acts from the point of view of perpetrators: genocide is rationally instrumental in their ends.

Helen Fein, Accounting For Genocide: National Responses and Jewish Victimization During the Holocaust (p.8)

Unfathomable that US President Donald J. Trump – surrounded by well-educated, well-informed, well-positioned Jewish advisors and insiders in his administration such as White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, nominee Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, and son-in-law / advisor Jared Kushner, to name but a few – would be ignorant of the historical parallels between his policy goals for the Palestinians and Nazi Germany’s infamous Madagascar Plan for the Jews. Continue reading “The Trump-Netanyahu Madagascar Plan: exhorting ethnic cleansing with slow-burning genocidal consequences for the Gazan (and conceivably West Bank) Palestinians”

In international criminal justice, which prioritizes the prosecution of fewer but more extreme crimes in countries often devastated by internal armed conflict and political breakdown, procedure’s demonstrative role in reestablishing the rule of law is particularly significant. Yet, regardless of the context, the sine qua non of criminal procedure is to make possible a fair adjudication of facts and principled determination of the guilt or innocence of accused persons. If procedure fails in that elemental task, it undermines not only ICL’s core aim of assigning individual criminal responsibility, but also its broader goals, such as promoting peace and stability in affected countries and regions.

Johnathan Hafetz, Punishing Atrocities Through a Fair Trial

I see more clearly than ever before that even our troubles spring from something that is admirable and sound as it is dangerous—from our impatience to better the lot of our fellows.

Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies 

In national criminal justice, which seeks to address the crimes of all offenders rather than the few most responsible, criminal procedure is equally the sine qua non for ensuring a fair adjudication of facts and determination of individual criminal responsibility. Procedural fairness enhances the acceptance of the results, which in turn enhances confidence in the rule of law, thus promoting peace and stability. Getting the procedure right is essential. But there are a host of challenges that must also be resolved before trials can be held. Hence why Karl Popper’s refrain on impatience despite good intentions should be heeded. Designing a comprehensive and holistic rule of law blueprint tailored to Syria should be at the top of the transitional justice list.

Syria may be free of the Bashar al-Assad regime, but it risks becoming another failed state like Libya – fragmented, chaotic, conflict-ridden, unstable, and unsafe. Toppling al-Assad (given the serendipity of circumstances) may prove to be easier than establishing and maintaining peace and freedom, pursuing justice and accountability, and forming a free, democratic, inclusive, tolerant, and independent Syria. The dramatic psychological lift brought about by the ousting of the al-Assad regime must be quickly built upon, so the perception of progress is not lost. Continue reading “SYRIA MUST FIRST ESTABLISH RULE OF LAW: Avoid expedient justice and accountability measures that produce expeditious but unreliable and insupportable results”

Even though I do not find it plausible that the military operation is being conducted with genocidal intent, I voted in favour of the measures indicated by the Court. To indicate those measures, it is not necessary for the Court to find that the military operation as such implicates plausible rights of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. My decision to vote in favour of the measures indicated rests on the plausible claims by South Africa that certain statements by Israeli State officials, including members of its military, give rise to a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights of Palestinians under the Genocide Convention (see paragraphs 50-52 of the Order).

Judge Georg Nolte, Declaration (para. 15)

The celebrated French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre is credited with having coined the incisive aphorism “Words are loaded pistols”. Like weapons, when hitting the intended target, words have the capacity to affect opinions and behavior. And like bullets, once they leave the chamber, once uttered and heard by the intended audience, they are irretrievable. Yes, they can be retracted and repackaged and recalibrated, followed by a contrite mea culpa or transparently trite excuse, but effectively the desired effect in uttering the words in the first place remains. Ominously, when words are uttered – intentionally, recklessly, or carelessly – by high-level officials and respected members of a community and revered military officers (whether active or retired), the potential to inspire, induce, and incite to act in a desired fashioned is rather high. Unintended interpretations of words can also lead to unintended greenlighting of impermissible actions, not to mention unavoidable implied impressions generally formed from actions followed from words. Continue reading “MY TAKE ON THE ICJ’S SOUTH AFRICA v. ISRAEL ORDER”

South Africa is highly cognisant of the fact that acts of genocide are distinct from other violations of international law sanctioned or perpetrated by the Israeli government and military in Gaza — including intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population, civilian objects and buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected; torture; the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare; and other war crimes and crimes against humanity — though there is often a close connection between all such acts. South Africa is also aware that acts of genocide inevitably form part of a continuum — as Raphael Lemkin who coined the term ‘genocide’ himself recognised. For this reason it is important to place the acts of genocide in the broader context of Israel’s conduct towards Palestinians during its 75-year-long apartheid, its 56-yearlong belligerent occupation of Palestinian territory and its 16-year-long blockade of Gaza, including the serious and ongoing violations of international law associated there,,,with, including grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and other war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, when referring in this Application to acts and omissions by Israel which are capable of amounting to other violations of international law, South Africa’s case is that those acts and omissions are genocidal in character, as they are committed with the requisite specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a part of the broader Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group.

Application Instituting Proceedings (para. 2).

Relying on the Genocide Convention, South Africa in its Application Instituting Proceedings (SA Application) to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) seeks a finding of the existence of genocidal intent, and injunctive relief as provisional measures – an order requiring Israel to cease or limit its military operations in Gaza. I expected a cogent, balanced, and persuasive submission – to perhaps even be convinced since I’ve not seen evidence from which to conclude the existence of the requisite dolus specialis (genocidal intent). Disappointingly, the SA Application ignores or glosses over critical context as it relates to Israel’s right of self-defense – relevant to objectively assessing the SA Application. The legal analysis is also less than impressive. Suffice it to say, the facts as marshalled, and the arguments as crafted in the SA Application have not nudged me one iota towards the more vocal and ostensibly conformist assessment. I remain unmoved that a genocide, strictly in the legal sense, is ongoing in Gaza, just as I remain unpersuaded that the ICJ can order provisional measures which may infringe on Israel’s right of self-defense. Hence this post. Continue reading “SOUTH AFRICA’S ICJ APPLICATION: A convincing genocide claim or a compelling off-ramp for Israel (and cautionary refrain for the US)”

“We’re not gonna have a war, we’re gonna have the appearance of a war.”

Conrad Brean (Robert de Niro)

“Look at that! That is a complete f….. fraud, and it looks a hundred percent real. It’s the best work I’ve ever done in my life, because it’s so honest.”

Stanley Motss (Dustin Hoffman)

Wag the Dog (1997)

In Barry Levinson’s dark comedy Wag the Dog, we see a savvy political operative/spin doctor (Robert de Niro) get together with an exuberantly resourceful Hollywood executive (Dustin Hoffman) to generate images and footage of a fictional war to distract and misdirect the public from focusing on a scandal involving the US President. Over the course of a week or so, an ensemble of writers, actors, song writers, cameramen, and technicians put together a persuasive, realistic, bamboozling visual narrative. Crisis averted; scandal disremembered.

Not that what we see on TV and social media today on the events unfolding in Ukraine or Gaza or elsewhere are fictional. To the contrary, these are real events with real victims, real destruction, real misery, real consequences. But how much of what we see (and hear about what is being seen) should we believe? Most I suspect. Yet, most is not sufficient, just as close enough is not trustworthy in criminal proceedings where the evidence (as in any type of trial whether civil, commercial, or criminal) needs to be authentic and reliable – assuming it is relevant.

The process of determining the admissibility of evidence is rather straight forward. A foundation needs to be laid. The proponent will adduce evidence from witnesses who will testify as to the provenance of the evidence. In some cases, it may also be necessary to establish the reliability of the evidence through witnesses who have generated or collected and/or analyzed the evidence – before testimony on the substance of the evidence can/should be taken. Of course, before the evidence is admitted for the purposes of eliciting substantive evidence on what it purports to prove or disprove, the opposing side should be given an opportunity to conduct a voir dire, i.e., a cross-examination on the provenance, authenticity, reliability, and in some instances, the relevance. Continue reading “TRUE Project and Inner Temple Demystify the “New Frontiers in Evidence” – User Generated and Open Source Material”