Richard falk why international law matters

In the process, the UN ignoring its own Charter embraced the pseudo-legalism of enforcing the punitive ceasefire resolutions imposed on a defeated Iraq after the Gulf War, embarking on this inspection safari that has found pathetically little despite visiting more than suspected sites, having unlimited access and extensive intelligence, and the incriminating testimony of an array of Iraqi defectors.

The Bush administration has made it clear that it would greet a favorable report by the UN inspectors in a spirit of defiance, further undermining respect for international law and UN procedures, and returning to its original impulse to embark on war without prior UN approval. When September 11 occurred it was obvious to me and others that this new struggle would exert pressure on the capacity of international law to provide acceptable limits on the way in which the United States pursued security in the world.

For this reason, it seemed to make sense to give renewed attention to the Just War Doctrine as a way of acknowledging and identifying limits on recourse to force, yet loosening the restraints of legal rules that had been crafted to minimize warfare between territorial states. What could be done in relation to a concealed terrorist network needed to be different, including the authorization under exceptional circumstances of extending notions of self-defense to deal in an anticipatory manner with threats from abroad that were severe and immediate.

At the same time, there was no basis for abandoning international law or undermining UN authority when dealing with conflicts between territorial states. The claimed right of preemption against Iraq seemed best understood as recourse to "aggressive war" by the United States.

To redefine the issue as the enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions or as a disarmament measure is to trample on the sovereign rights of Iraq. To suggest that the legal basis of the war is to unseat Iraq's brutal ruler, a claim of humanitarian intervention, is so far from the real American motivations for the war and so manifestly hypocritical that even the Bush leadership only refers to such issues in passing.

Even aside from the Iraqi debate, the issues at stake are fundamental. Part of the difficulty is that the debate about the relevance of international law has been mainly between advocates of polar positions both of which miss the point. And then there are the legalists who insist that nothing has changed, and that a rather literal reading of the Charter restraints deserves unconditional respect regardless of the gravity, the apocalyptic worldview, and the non-territorial character of the mega-terrorist security threats.

A more useful approach to international law, although admittedly more complicated, and dependent on the messier dynamics of judgment and interpretation, is to reaffirm the persisting vitality of the Charter approach to war and international force, but to acknowledge that the nature of global terrorism makes certain extensions of the doctrine of self-defense justifiable in exceptional circumstances.

Referring back to the argument made above, there are grounds for loosening the restraints in relation to al Qaeda, but not with respect to Iraq. September 11 provides no persuasive grounds for departing from the prohibition upon the use of aggressive force in relation to Iraq.

At most, such force could be authorized by an explicit decision of the UN Security Council, but such authorization would itself be dubious, violating the letter and spirit of the Charter. It needs to be recalled and confirmed anew that the primary mission of the United Nations is war prevention , "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" in the famous words of the Charter Preamble.

And make no mistake that even quick wars are a scourge for its victims and their families. There is every reason to expect an Iraq war to be such a scourge. There remains the possibility that America's diplomatic muscle will intimidate the Security Council membership to ignore their constitutional responsibilities under the Charter, and either mandate an unwarranted war or refuse to place obstacles in the way of Washington's stated intentions.

Such a UN posture will weaken the credibility of the Organization as representing the best interests of the peoples in the world on matters of peace and security, and would further weaken the role of international law in world politics.

At this stage, the White House seems resolved to wage war, however weak its legal case, and despite the withering away of support even at home.

International Justice and Individual Self-Preservation. Cosmopolitism, Global Justice and International Law. International Charity or Global Justice? Giuliano Pontara - - In Lars O. Thom Brooks - - Journal of Social Philosophy 39 4 Reparations: Interdisciplinary Inquiries. John C. Daniel Butt - - Oxford University Press. Justice and Reparations in World Politics.

Andy Lamey - - Toronto: Doubleday Canada. Justice and Reparations. Added to PP index Total views 49 , of 2,, Recent downloads 6 months 3 , of 2,, How can I increase my downloads? Sign in to use this feature. About us. Editorial team. No keywords specified fix it. Find it on Amazon. Why is the so-called international community allowing Israel to continue with its inhumane stance towards the Palestinians? Richard Falk: I think the fundamental explanation for this long experience of Israeli oppressive practices and policies with respect to the Palestinian people flows directly from the essential nature of the Zionist project to establish an exclusivist Jewish state in a predominantly non-Jewish society, and to do so during the long twilight of European colonialism.

This reality was further shaped by the Zionist insistence on seeking to be a legitimate modern secular state that respects human rights and formally operates as a constitutional democracy. My point is that ethnic cleansing was embedded in the establishment of a majoritarian and exclusive Jewish state from the moment that the Israeli state came into being.

This insistence on being an exclusivist Jewish state was always embedded in the Zionist Project, but it was not revealed until the passage of the Israel Nation State Law of the Jewish People, which removes any ambiguity, converting the de facto realities of an apartheid state into a self-proclaimed de jure framework.

There is a further issue of great importance. The idea of self-determination gained prominence during the period after World War II, gaining momentum as a result of a series of anti-colonial struggles involving countries throughout Asia and Africa. The Palestinian people could not be expected to submit to the Zionist Project without doing all in their power by way of resistance, and archival records show that Palestinian resistance was anticipated by early Zionist leaders.

Again, the cycle of resistance and repression is mutually reinforcing, and can be expected to continue until Israel recalculates their interests so as to reach a political compromise capable of producing sustainable peace based on the equality of the two peoples.

This is what happened in South Africa, coming as a surprise, as a result of mounting worldwide soft power pressures that led the political leadership to accept the dismantling of the apartheid regime in the country. Of course, in the background until recently, was the relevance of the Jewish diaspora as creating a geopolitical situation that shielded Israel from efforts to implement either UN majority views on how to resolve the conflict or to exert inter-governmental pressures on Israel by way of sanctions.

Zionism is a non-territorial world movement with a territorial base in Israel since With Trump in the White House Israel is assured of unlimited political support for its policies of brutality against the Palestinian people. This development is accentuated by the broader developments in the Middle East that have led to a convergence of primary interests of Arab governments with the regional policies of Israel, which has meant a weakening of regional and international governmental support for the Palestinian national struggle.

The failure of the Palestinian movement to achieve political unity contributes further to the current ordeal being daily experienced by the Palestinian people as the excessive Israeli violence at the Gaza border in response to a largely nonviolent protest movement has demonstrated so dramatically. Polychroniou: Numerous artists withdrew recently their participation from a music festival in Israel, apparently under pressure from the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions BDS movement.

Given that Israel is not facing the sort of international isolation that apartheid South Africa begun to face years before it's collapse, is BDS of any concrete benefit to the Palestinian people, or merely a plain irritation for the Israeli government? Richard Falk: The growing impact of the BDS Campaign is a sign that global solidarity movement of support for the achievement of Palestinian basic rights is gaining political traction throughout the world.

BDS is the spearhead of this form of coercive nonviolent efforts to obtain compliance with basic requirements of law and morality. It should be kept in mind that BDS was not an internationalist venture, but formed in response to a call for solidarity by a large number of NGOs based in Palestinians and has continued to be led by Palestinians. The frantic efforts of Israel and its supporters around the world to criminalize participation in BDS seems an over-reaction to the effectiveness of BDS as a tactic of opposition and a challenge to the legitimacy of Israel as an exclusivist or apartheid Jewish state.

Such moves to defame BDS supporters and even to criminalize participation is posing a serious danger to free expression in the West. By the insistence in defining anti-Semitism as embracing harsh criticism of Israel it directly challenges freedom of expression and weakens the capacity of society to promote social and economic justice.

Besides this, by conflating criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, Zionist opportunism is confusing the nature of anti-Semitism in ways that obscure real threats of ethnic hatred, which is as unacceptable to BDS supporters as it is to BDS attackers. State Department and by the British Labour Party are illustrative of this unfortunate trend. At the same time it is important to appreciate the potential leverage exerted by the BDS campaign.

Waters explains his animating motivation with these words tied to the wider struggle for human dignity:. And I believe that to be true. So this struggle is really only an attempt to implement those brave words from The long victimization of the Palestinian people is a stark reminder that the original undertaking to promote human rights in remains an almost invisible distant goal. It is helpful to remember that most of the positive changes with respect to law and morality started on the streets with expression of outrage directed as prevailing policies.

This was true of the civil rights movement in America, of the protests against Communist rule in Eastern Europe, of the Arab Spring, of the struggles for gay rights, and indeed for every notable positive development that has occurred during my lifetime. Yet one should not get carried away. We should not, however, uncritically glamorize movements from below. Fascism was responsive to populist frustrations giving rise to demagogues who stir crowds to frenzy with their demonic solutions to the ills of society.

What has been the role of the UN towards the so-called Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and where does international law stand over this matter? Richard Falk: My experience at the UN as Special Rapporteur helped me understand why the UN is important, yet extremely limited due to its lack of independent political capabilities needed to implement its recommendations.

This gap between contributions and expectations was particularly apparent in relation to the Palestinian issue. In both the Human Rights Council in Geneva and the General Assembly in New York, the Palestinian struggle to achieve their rights was supported rhetorically by an overwhelming majority of states, yet it was opposed by important geopolitical actors, especially the United States.

Such outcomes on the level of behavior give rise to impressions of irrelevance that are as misleading as are reliance on the UN, as now constituted, to serve as a reliable vehicle for achieving the values of peace, global justice, and ecological stability. In a positive manner, the UN was a crucial authority with respect to validating Palestinian grievances, and helped Palestine in its effort to win the Legitimacy War with Israel, which is important.

It should be remembered that most political struggles relating to self-determination were won in the end by the side that won the Legitimacy War, and not the side with military superiority.