First, find out what isn't true…

October 1, 2009

CiF on ‘alleged’ War Crimes. Israel vs the UN. Should Ehud Barak have immunity?


The Guardian CiF Afua Hirsch guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 September 2009The attempt to arrest the Israeli minister in Britain has rekindled a lively debate on diplomatic immunity from international law

First we should look at what International Law actually says. Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Preamble: The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949, for the purpose of establishing a Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, have agreed as follows:

Part I. General Provisions
Art 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

The UK, as a signatory to the Conventions, is a High Contracting party.

Art. 146.The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.

Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.

Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.

In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949.

Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

Art. 148. No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.

Art. 149. At the request of a Party to the conflict, an enquiry shall be instituted, in a manner to be decided between the interested Parties, concerning any alleged violation of the Convention.

If agreement has not been reached concerning the procedure for the enquiry, the Parties should agree on the choice of an umpire who will decide upon the procedure to be followed.

Once the violation has been established, the Parties to the conflict shall put an end to it and shall repress it with the least possible delay.

The answer seems to be NO! The operative words are ‘alleged to have’.

Furthermore, it is an indisputable fact that Israel confined the entire population of Gaza, preventing them from fleeing a war zone, by having all crossings closed under the 2005 agreement, including those between Gaza & Egypt. Escape was not possible, ironically, not even into the sea.

Advertisements

3 Comments »

  1. RemovedOff Topic – the thread is – Should Ehud Barak have immunity?

    Comment by morris — October 8, 2009 @ 8:54 am

  2. NotMe October 1, 2009 at 6:33 pm

    WOW!! When you have nothing to say, you come right on out and say it eh!

    Comment by talknic — October 2, 2009 @ 3:53 am

  3. You’re doing this for a dare, right?

    Or is it to try to help you with your poor impulse control towards verbal diarrhea?

    You forgot to mention CiFWatch talknic at CiFWatch.com

    But then you would wouldn’t you?

    Comment by NotMe — October 1, 2009 @ 6:33 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: