At the end of a long day, can I just add this thought. I hope I’m not alone in my surprise and admiration that Theodore Meron is still alive and working after all these years. It must be well over 50 years since he gave prime minister Eshkol unwelcome advice about the legality of settlements on the West Bank. Whether you think he is a hero or a pain in the neck (and the beauty of the law is that you can be both in the same breath) he is a judge who calls it the way he sees it.
Khan's position on the arrest warrant is fact a conflation of MacDonald's two discrete options. He knew in advance that he and the panel members he selected are of a common mind. It's arguable which is worse; Khan's ignoring of the need for complementarity or his cynical use of a bogus panel for naked political purpose. Either way, the ICC is arriving at a political vanishing point where it might in future be best ignored.
An excellent update - thank you Joshua. I have saved listening to the full Policy Exchange discussion until I have had a few more cups of coffee as everything that this mysteriously funded group inveigle themselves in has the hallmarks of propaganda for authoritarian rule - what a complete & utter shower they are.
Thanks for linking the PE talk Joshua… your question to the panel was valuable. MacDonald’s admission that as DPP he’d never authorised a soldier’s prosecution makes his argument on *complementarity* otiose. The argument that war crimes shouldn’t be charged mid-conflict is absurd - it’s vital that potential breaches of war crimes are highlighted asap if only as a reminder to all states of their obligations not to, for instance, supply technology that enables further suspected war crimes to be carried out. One to watch - I hope that you continue to update us here on this complex, but massively important, area of law.
Such helpful material from Joshua on this emotionally and politically charged issue; my thanks to him. I contribute merely this thought: significant though the action would remain, does this not strengthen still further the case for proscription of the vile IRGC?
At the end of a long day, can I just add this thought. I hope I’m not alone in my surprise and admiration that Theodore Meron is still alive and working after all these years. It must be well over 50 years since he gave prime minister Eshkol unwelcome advice about the legality of settlements on the West Bank. Whether you think he is a hero or a pain in the neck (and the beauty of the law is that you can be both in the same breath) he is a judge who calls it the way he sees it.
Khan's position on the arrest warrant is fact a conflation of MacDonald's two discrete options. He knew in advance that he and the panel members he selected are of a common mind. It's arguable which is worse; Khan's ignoring of the need for complementarity or his cynical use of a bogus panel for naked political purpose. Either way, the ICC is arriving at a political vanishing point where it might in future be best ignored.
An excellent update - thank you Joshua. I have saved listening to the full Policy Exchange discussion until I have had a few more cups of coffee as everything that this mysteriously funded group inveigle themselves in has the hallmarks of propaganda for authoritarian rule - what a complete & utter shower they are.
Thanks for linking the PE talk Joshua… your question to the panel was valuable. MacDonald’s admission that as DPP he’d never authorised a soldier’s prosecution makes his argument on *complementarity* otiose. The argument that war crimes shouldn’t be charged mid-conflict is absurd - it’s vital that potential breaches of war crimes are highlighted asap if only as a reminder to all states of their obligations not to, for instance, supply technology that enables further suspected war crimes to be carried out. One to watch - I hope that you continue to update us here on this complex, but massively important, area of law.
Such helpful material from Joshua on this emotionally and politically charged issue; my thanks to him. I contribute merely this thought: significant though the action would remain, does this not strengthen still further the case for proscription of the vile IRGC?