The problem, as Adam Chapnick argues, is that the international order is both unfair and deeply political. But that doesn't make its rules any less real.
I am inclined to agree - at least tentatively - with the writer’s assertion that the intervention of the ICC was ill-advised and premature.
Ill-advised because this intervention may interfere with diplomatic efforts by “real” great powers (which Israel is not), to broker a cessation of the fighting and to substitute a search for nonmilitary solutions.
And premature, because “liberal” forces within broadly democratic Israel, were successful in defeating its current government's efforts to neutralize the Israeli courts; so that it is premature to suppose that there was no forum in which alleged Israeli misconduct could be considered and judged against legal standards.
Although, of course, the experience of bringing such miscreants to justice in countries like the United States or Russia is hardly encouraging - let alone the possibility of redress for the flagrant violations of human rights in places like Myanmar.
Because the reality remains that politically and economically powerful states, and their citizens, remain largely immune from international prosecution or sanctions; and the actual enforcement of international norms – for example, against Serbia in the 1990s - rests with entities with military capacity and an appetite to use it.
In its own national interest.
There is, in other words, no such thing as equality before the law, or the equal application of the law, to all those who are ostensibly governed by it; and to this extent, the notion of a “rule based order” is a facade.
The reality remains that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
"The rules themselves, much like any others, are often broken and unevenly enforced, but that does not make them any less real." Real things that are ignored....are they still real? The UNSC has proven itself a gridlocked failure for years...if not decades. I think MAD doctrine had a lot more to do with avoiding another world war than anything accomplished by the UN. The world does not get less complicated.
Real things that are ignored are very real as just that, and reveal the most real part: it’s all a class war. Who is doing the ignoring, are the ones that literally believe themselves above us. This will be symbolically addressed in the inevitable pike parade, because a planet in overreach and an unsustainable lifestyle are *facts*, not policy or pronouncements such as can be ignored.
This part will become clearer, for example, when the AMOC goes amok and the food shortages really begin.
The oligarchs are making themselves the new royalty. We're enabling by failing to tax them, allowing them to hoard wealth, and giving their companies subsidies.
This defense of the existence of a rules-based international order feels a bit like the defenses of the 2020 BLM riots and the January 6 Capitol riot: "they were mostly peaceful." The problem is that the rules only seem to work when nations want to follow them; when they don't want to follow them, there's not really any effective enforcement mechanism short of war and might once again makes right. We can prosecute Serbians for their wars against their neighbors, but there's little that can be done about prosecuting Russians for comparable crimes against their neighbors.
Perhaps, George, we could offer a rebuttal to Mr. Chapnick: "Instead of there being a rules-based international order, there is actually rules based international disorder."
Thank you for this excellent rebuttal of what MG and JG wrote on the weekend. I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is indeed an international order. Your article described it in a much more articulate and complete way than I did (when I posted a commentary below the referenced op-ed).
WRT the ICC ruling (and Karim Khan's decision to seek warrants both for Israeli and Hamas officials), I did support Khan's decision. However, the arguments you've marshalled against the tack he chose were certainly compelling. Thank you.
The author makes some very good points. However, it seems that whatever rules based order may exist, it is declining. The trend is towards a disintegration of the former order, and that trend appears to be accelerating. Who has enough weight and credibility to halt and reverse the trend? No entity that I can see.
Arguing a “Rules Based International Order” exists, is much like my Russian friends, many years ago, arguing the former Soviet Union had one of the greatest Constitutions ever. Many Sergei Magnitsky’s or other window accidents were required to prove this was ridiculous. The UN is the same, it will perhaps take more time for this to become fully self evident.
The author makes the case that as a trading country, Canada benefits from global order and argues that the so-called “rules based international order” is the best way to achieve that.
Let’s assume for the moment that that he proved his case. He didn’t make the case, let alone prove the case that the ICC as it exists today is good for Canada or the world.
Even if one assumes that the so-called “rules based international order” is good overall it does not follow that every part of it is good. Some parts of it may be actively harmful to international order.
Thank you for posting this link; the article does indeed reveal some fairly shocking allegations. If true, it would add to the case against Netanyahu's government and its egregious policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians.
This is well out of the news/thread cycle, but this discussion about international law and how it applies to war crimes in the Israel-Hamas conflict has weighed heavily on me since the start. This discussion on the Ezra Klein pod was extremely helpful for how I try to process pro-Israel vs pro-Palestine feelings: https://pca.st/episode/a712cc47-0d24-4088-a331-abbe9a0ff53f
I hope it helps others further clarify their understanding of existing international law.
Canada would do better to get closer to the US and UK and forget the multilateralism which the ICC is but a part of. Dump the ICC and the multilateralism fetish and chalk it up to yet another weird boomer anti-American, appease Quebec Trudeaumania thing.
If Canada really wants to set itself up for world influence, we should be pushing for CANZUK, and nevermind the Quebec isolationist xenophobes
How many Palestinians need to die in Israel's (valid) quest for revenge before the ICC can intervene against Netanyahu? 5% of the Gazan population? 20%? 50%? And with an increasing amount of nuclear powers, does Russia's veto even matter anymore?
Wayne, I respectfully wish to correct you. Note: "respectfully."
It is my contention that Israel's quest is not for revenge but to root out and pre-emptively destroy Hamas BEFORE it Hamas again does what Hamas does. In other words, not revenge but cautionary cauterization of a malignancy.
As for your question of "How many need to die?" Well, the answer is NONE. Just turn over the Hamas fighters to Israel and the war is done.
Hamas is effectively cornered. There are two stark choices: wave a white flag and surrender, sparing the citizens the misery of a complete leveling of Rafah and continued death and injury, or continue to hide behind the civilians as the Israeli army closes in.
The only fitting end is a complete destruction of Hamas. The problem though, is the creation of yet more militant martyrs as the IDF completes the task. A catch 22 if you will. If leaders of the western democracies were far more supportive, both vocally and through actions (including the immediate arrest and deportation of those whose actions or words encouraged violence, and the immediate listing of several obvious NGO terrorist supporters), people might get the correct message that Hamas is not to be regarding in a positive light.
These types of debates and discussions are why I like and subscribe. And pay a little bit extra.
I am inclined to agree - at least tentatively - with the writer’s assertion that the intervention of the ICC was ill-advised and premature.
Ill-advised because this intervention may interfere with diplomatic efforts by “real” great powers (which Israel is not), to broker a cessation of the fighting and to substitute a search for nonmilitary solutions.
And premature, because “liberal” forces within broadly democratic Israel, were successful in defeating its current government's efforts to neutralize the Israeli courts; so that it is premature to suppose that there was no forum in which alleged Israeli misconduct could be considered and judged against legal standards.
Although, of course, the experience of bringing such miscreants to justice in countries like the United States or Russia is hardly encouraging - let alone the possibility of redress for the flagrant violations of human rights in places like Myanmar.
Because the reality remains that politically and economically powerful states, and their citizens, remain largely immune from international prosecution or sanctions; and the actual enforcement of international norms – for example, against Serbia in the 1990s - rests with entities with military capacity and an appetite to use it.
In its own national interest.
There is, in other words, no such thing as equality before the law, or the equal application of the law, to all those who are ostensibly governed by it; and to this extent, the notion of a “rule based order” is a facade.
The reality remains that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
It is a world of “interests”, not “rights”.
Appreciate the explanation and the understanding it affords.
"The rules themselves, much like any others, are often broken and unevenly enforced, but that does not make them any less real." Real things that are ignored....are they still real? The UNSC has proven itself a gridlocked failure for years...if not decades. I think MAD doctrine had a lot more to do with avoiding another world war than anything accomplished by the UN. The world does not get less complicated.
Real things that are ignored are very real as just that, and reveal the most real part: it’s all a class war. Who is doing the ignoring, are the ones that literally believe themselves above us. This will be symbolically addressed in the inevitable pike parade, because a planet in overreach and an unsustainable lifestyle are *facts*, not policy or pronouncements such as can be ignored.
This part will become clearer, for example, when the AMOC goes amok and the food shortages really begin.
The oligarchs are making themselves the new royalty. We're enabling by failing to tax them, allowing them to hoard wealth, and giving their companies subsidies.
Great commentary.
This defense of the existence of a rules-based international order feels a bit like the defenses of the 2020 BLM riots and the January 6 Capitol riot: "they were mostly peaceful." The problem is that the rules only seem to work when nations want to follow them; when they don't want to follow them, there's not really any effective enforcement mechanism short of war and might once again makes right. We can prosecute Serbians for their wars against their neighbors, but there's little that can be done about prosecuting Russians for comparable crimes against their neighbors.
Perhaps, George, we could offer a rebuttal to Mr. Chapnick: "Instead of there being a rules-based international order, there is actually rules based international disorder."
Thank you for this excellent rebuttal of what MG and JG wrote on the weekend. I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is indeed an international order. Your article described it in a much more articulate and complete way than I did (when I posted a commentary below the referenced op-ed).
WRT the ICC ruling (and Karim Khan's decision to seek warrants both for Israeli and Hamas officials), I did support Khan's decision. However, the arguments you've marshalled against the tack he chose were certainly compelling. Thank you.
Khan is not impartial. Khan is very partial.
The author makes some very good points. However, it seems that whatever rules based order may exist, it is declining. The trend is towards a disintegration of the former order, and that trend appears to be accelerating. Who has enough weight and credibility to halt and reverse the trend? No entity that I can see.
Arguing a “Rules Based International Order” exists, is much like my Russian friends, many years ago, arguing the former Soviet Union had one of the greatest Constitutions ever. Many Sergei Magnitsky’s or other window accidents were required to prove this was ridiculous. The UN is the same, it will perhaps take more time for this to become fully self evident.
The author makes the case that as a trading country, Canada benefits from global order and argues that the so-called “rules based international order” is the best way to achieve that.
Let’s assume for the moment that that he proved his case. He didn’t make the case, let alone prove the case that the ICC as it exists today is good for Canada or the world.
Even if one assumes that the so-called “rules based international order” is good overall it does not follow that every part of it is good. Some parts of it may be actively harmful to international order.
To add to this exchange of ideas, a (perfectly timed) piece from the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/28/spying-hacking-intimidation-israel-war-icc-exposed
Thank you for posting this link; the article does indeed reveal some fairly shocking allegations. If true, it would add to the case against Netanyahu's government and its egregious policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians.
This is well out of the news/thread cycle, but this discussion about international law and how it applies to war crimes in the Israel-Hamas conflict has weighed heavily on me since the start. This discussion on the Ezra Klein pod was extremely helpful for how I try to process pro-Israel vs pro-Palestine feelings: https://pca.st/episode/a712cc47-0d24-4088-a331-abbe9a0ff53f
I hope it helps others further clarify their understanding of existing international law.
Canada would do better to get closer to the US and UK and forget the multilateralism which the ICC is but a part of. Dump the ICC and the multilateralism fetish and chalk it up to yet another weird boomer anti-American, appease Quebec Trudeaumania thing.
If Canada really wants to set itself up for world influence, we should be pushing for CANZUK, and nevermind the Quebec isolationist xenophobes
How many Palestinians need to die in Israel's (valid) quest for revenge before the ICC can intervene against Netanyahu? 5% of the Gazan population? 20%? 50%? And with an increasing amount of nuclear powers, does Russia's veto even matter anymore?
Wayne, I respectfully wish to correct you. Note: "respectfully."
It is my contention that Israel's quest is not for revenge but to root out and pre-emptively destroy Hamas BEFORE it Hamas again does what Hamas does. In other words, not revenge but cautionary cauterization of a malignancy.
As for your question of "How many need to die?" Well, the answer is NONE. Just turn over the Hamas fighters to Israel and the war is done.
And the hostages!
I DO apologize for my oversight in not mentioning that ever so important consideration!
Hamas is effectively cornered. There are two stark choices: wave a white flag and surrender, sparing the citizens the misery of a complete leveling of Rafah and continued death and injury, or continue to hide behind the civilians as the Israeli army closes in.
Hamas militants will hide behind the many civilians who support them.
The only fitting end is a complete destruction of Hamas. The problem though, is the creation of yet more militant martyrs as the IDF completes the task. A catch 22 if you will. If leaders of the western democracies were far more supportive, both vocally and through actions (including the immediate arrest and deportation of those whose actions or words encouraged violence, and the immediate listing of several obvious NGO terrorist supporters), people might get the correct message that Hamas is not to be regarding in a positive light.