The Case of Ariel Sharon and the Fate of Universal Jurisdiction

[Englander]

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3345.shtml

Press Release, PIIRS, 18 November 2004

In June 2001 a criminal complaint on behalf of twenty-eight witnesses and survivors of the 1982 massacre at the the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut was brought before a Belgium court. For their roles in the massacre, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, Army Major General Amos Yaron, and several members of the the Lebanese Christian militia were charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The entire proceeding immediately became known as the "case of Ariel Sharon."

"The Case of Ariel Sharon and the Fate of Universal Jurisdiction" is a series of essays about the case of Ariel Sharon, its meaning and consequences for the fate of universal jurisdiction. It includes analyses by human rights advocates, legal scholars, and anthropologists, some of whom were participants in this legal intervention, others of whom were independent experts with different experiences and disciplinary perspectives.

The contributors to this book are interested less in establishing the guilt of the perpetrators, balancing Palestinian and Israeli accounts, or arguing about the immediate legal merits of the Sharon case than in considering its general social theoretical significance for the doctrine of universal jurisdiction

"The Case of Ariel Sharon and the Fate of Universal Jurisdiction" edited by John Borneman, including essays by John Borneman, Chibli Mallat, Luc Walleyn, Laurie King-Irani, Dan Rabinowitz, Sally Falk Moore, Paul W. Kahn, and Reed Brody, Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies Monograph Series, Number 2, Princeton University , 2004.


http://www.princeton.edu/~piirs/borneman/

[forgethell]

1. Universal jurisdiction is

a very bad idea. What is to keep Saudi Arabia from passing a law decreeing the death sentence for "blasphemy" for anyone, anywhere in the world?

Besides, it's unworkable. Belgium thinks that it can get Israel to turn over its leaders? the USA? Laws that are unenforceable simply breed disrespect for law. As they should. this is why international law is a joke. It can be applied only to countries that are already conquered, or that will voluntarily agree. And "law" has nothing to do with volunteerism.

Do you think * will ever wind up in a Belgian court? what about those Canadians that think they are going to serve an arrest warrant on him when he addresses their Parliament? Talk about driving the USA further to the right!!! That would do it, alrighty.

[Englander]

2. "...keep Saudi Arabia from passing a law...."........

"The principle of universal jurisdiction permits the national courts of any state to try people accused of crimes under international law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide as well as torture, extrajudicial executions and "disappearances," regardless of the nationality of the alleged perpetrators or victims and regardless of where the crimes were committed."
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde150892001?open&of=eng-385

Saudi Arabia can pass any law they like,maybe they already have one decreeing death for blasphemers.That is not an international law,and no court,judge or government would extradite anyone to Riyadh.

"Besides, it's unworkable" Universal jurisdiction has been used in trials and prosecutions by more than a dozen countries,and should at least be tried if the cases are not successful.
Would you prefer that Pinochet, or the Rwandans,or Milosevic or Sharon were not held accountable for their crimes? Their crimes are so serious, that they must be held to account.
The fascist Chimp will probably not have his day in court,but I hope that at some point in the future an Iraqi court tries to have him extradited,along with Blair.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/uj-cases-eng

[forgethell]

3. Nobody's going to

extradite Bush to Brussels, either, despite the fairly deranged fantasies I sometimes see on this board. They certainly won't do it to Iraq.

And I feel that you may be a little optimistic about whether someone would extradite to the Saudis in the future.

As for the crimes that you mention, well no, I don't want Sharon punished for his "crimes", as I disagree that they are. As for the others, I see no reason not to punish them in the jurisdictions where the alleged (innocent until provven guilty, no?) crimes took place. Or by occupying forces on the international community. But Belgium? no!

[Englander]

4. "..a little optimistic....." I can't find or think of any case where...

someone has been, or is in the process of being extradited to Riyadh..a couple of cases where other countries have asked the Saudis to
give up a suspect,but not the other way round.Which countries do you think would send anyone to Riyadh?

Why do you disagree about the case against Sharon? He bares responsibility for what happened at Sabra & Chatila,for the deaths of 100s...

"alleged (innocent until provven guilty, no?"
Wow. Are you really going out to bat for Milosevic & Pinochet?

"no reason not to punish them in the jurisdictions.."
That's right,and is also proper that victims of the genocide or other crimes should be allowed to bring prosecutions in other countries;Belgium,or Spain or UK or US.

[forgethell]

5. Well, as for

extradition to Riyadh, maybe not yet, but I have no doubt that with sufficient PR, Saudi Arabia can make a case in th future. But I won't argue the point.


Again, we seem to have a difference of opinion, not so much as to what constitutes a war crime, but what is the definition of responsibility for one. But, along these lines, how many Palestinians have been accused of war crimes? Anyway, if I remember, Brussels backed down on Sharon. This indicates to me that it was a politically motivated stunt to begin with. And I will repeat, unenforceable law is only a mockery of law.

Alleged? Well, under our (USA) system, a man is presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law. So, yes, I would go to bat for them to that extent. And so should you, if you believe in the rule of law. Otherwise, it's just a kangaroo court, again making a mockery of international law. Even in Nuremberg, there were one or two defendants that were found innocent.

I simply disagree with the last statement. That means that we apply our standards to people of another culture and nation. There is simply to much room for political persecution through prosecution. While this tends to favor progressive positions rather than conservative, at the present time, I think the events of last November show that the conservatives are still strong and may gain control of the international institutions, or create new ones. How about if Belgium extradited Castro for 'crimes against humanity'? He does have a somewhat bloody record.

[Djinn]

6. I actually agree

not because of the Saudi example but because the only people ever held accountable for war crimes are losers of conflicts - Nazis, Japanese, Milosevic.

While Israel continues to be supported by the US they wont be held accountable for anything.

I'm never sure whether to laugh or cry that the US can refuse to be held accountable by any other nation and has stated that should any US soldier manage to find himself arrested by a foreign power for war crimes/crimes against humanity then they would send an armed "rescue" squad - yet at the same time they hold the nationals of several foreign countries with no charge, no evidence and no trial for nearly three years now and counting.

[QueerJustice]

8. Maybe its not Israel to be held accountable...

....maybe its their ``partners`` in peace....who should?

[hellhathnofury]

7. A thought

The problem with universal jurisdiction being exercised by national governments is that it creates a situation that encourages reciprocity because international law is a controversial concept. How and who determines when it has been violated is not clear, nor is what course of action should be sought for punishment. Unless everyone is playing by accepted rules universal jurisdiction creates more problems than it solves.

The better solution to the problem is a body like the ICC with possibly more severe restrictions so it acts as a proper body of international jurisprudence and not a political tool.