From an early age, I remember reading newspaper headlines of "government condemns Israeli's violation of Geneva Convention and Human Rights in the Occupied Territories" or "King calls upon UN to take action to stop Palestinian suffering." As a child who did not know any better, I thought that this International Law must be "really something." International Law is now my area of specialization, and now being a step closer to becoming an international lawyer, my relationship with international law became more narrowly defined. It is one that is both intriguing and perturbing. Since my passion for international law and politics manifested itself within me, I became weary perhaps even agitated about our -as Arabs - perception of and expectations from International Law.

This agitation significantly peaked during the events in Gaza, during which governments, officials, analysts and lay people were calling upon international law to intervene and stop the gross and indiscriminate crimes against the Palestinian population. I hope that all of us will understand how international law really operates in order to become real players in this power politics of the international arena. We need to understand first how international law operates on the basis of consent, or so to speak, that in order for law to become international in substance and applicability the consent of over 190 states which are represented in the United Nations needs to be secured. Understanding that as the initial premise on which international law rests - which is justified by the principle of non - intervention and respect for state sovereignty - entails the safe assumption of the problematic nature of international law. One also needs to understand the power politics in international law, and how the Powerful 5 (P5) on the Security Council pass resolutions which bind the whole world - sometimes even states that are not members in the United Nations - and now individuals through smart or targeted sanctions against for example individual suspects of terrorism.

How is that relevant to the Palestinian - Israeli conflict, if it is in any way? The first thing that comes to my mind in times of frustration with international law and its frequent invocation by desperate voices in the Arab world are the instance where it is for instance that Israel violated the Geneva Conventions. Surprisingly, Israel is party to such conventions, but what does that change? We did not see the NATO intervening to save the Palestinians over the past 61 years of conflict, like it did in Kosovo for example. This is not simply the result of a deficient enforcement and sanctions mechanism in International Law, but is largely due to the lack of will on part of Member States, especially the Security Council members, USA, UK, and France whom are not particularly subtle about their unconditional support for the illegal state of Israel. If one understands how politics greatly influence legal narratives, then one can understand why Israel was acknowledged as a state and Palestine was not. This something I personally cling to as a matter of importance that is still yet deprived of logic. In the light of the recent calls for a Palestinian initiative to declare an independent Palestinian state within the next couple of years, I keep - naively perhaps - wondering why did not Palestine do that already? I then remember the notion of failed states, like the federal states of Former Yugoslavia that were not acknowledged as independent states, by the international community. For the sake of political and legal correctness, the requirement of statehood are not many; permanent population, defined territory, effective government, and the ability to enter into relations with other states. One can reasonably assume the fulfillment of such elements, there is a permanent population, defined territory as it is now (or the lack of it would be attributed to Israel) by the 67 lines which are generally recognized. As for an effective government, then I would put the question of: effective in whose view? Surely Palestinian are divided in their support, but there is also a government in place that on its face can be seen as effective, yet this remains a purely subjective determination but should not rest within the international domain if not for anything then to uphold the foundational principle of international law, that of non - intervention and respect for state sovereignty. Finally, as for the ability to enter into relations with other states it can be said that this requirement is also fulfilled, as relations can be the result of other states' reaction to the Palestinian situation and therefore the falling of such into either hostile, neutral or friendly relations.

The last requirement which is not defined as "customary" but is nevertheless axiomatically fundamental is the declaration of statehood and the recognition by other states. It could be as simple as Palestine declaring itself as an independent state unilaterally, but here, is it the reaction of other states that ironically matter more, and its where other "states" such as Kosovo failed. This is again where power politics comes to play, where questionably Israel might not have met the requirements set above but was, regardless, recognized as a state. This dichotomy between the emphasis International Law puts on other states and its hypocritical non - intervention principle unfolds as a grave continuum of contradiction within International Law , which is supposed to be protective of less empowered states, but it is exactly bringing about the opposite results sof its promised mandate.

Such constitutes basic knowledge about Public International Law, that governs and impacts our everyday lives wherever we reside and no matter how much for otherwise we might plead. That is why I take a personal stake in International Law when it is invoked by us Arabs as ordinary citizens. International Law especially throughout the Palestinian - Israeli conflict has disappointed us all. It disappointed us when USA invaded Afghanistan and more when it invaded Iraq and executed Sadam Hussien in the first morning of Eid. It disappoints us every day, even when it "condemns" the barbarian IDF's actions that are now the cornerstone of innumerable Palestinians' daily routine. I hope we will stop asking International Law, I hope we will stop expecting the intangible from the United Nations and I hope we will all acknowledge that our resort to International Law should not only be when is needed, but when our resort to such it is actually acknowledged and validly legitimate . I hope we will stop burdening ourselves with our over-expectations and finally treat International Law as it really is; a bitter inevitability and a sweet necessity.

Related Posts

No releated Posts