Ukraine: International law must be respected

Ukraine: International law must be respected

As the Russian Federation launches a military invasion of Ukraine, its forces and those of other parties to the conflict must respect international law and protect civilian lives, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) urged today.

International community must wholly reject the US-proposed “Peace to Prosperity” plan for Israel and Palestine

International community must wholly reject the US-proposed “Peace to Prosperity” plan for Israel and Palestine

The “Peace to Prosperity” plan proposed by the United States, and developed in the absence of any meaningful engagement with Palestinian representatives, is not a serious means to solve the conflict between Israel and Palestinian, and all actors in the international community should reject it, the ICJ said today.

As presented, the Plan would pave the way for Israel to annex large portions of the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and deny the Palestinians the internationally protected right to self-determination as well as the right to return of Palestinians. In addition, it seeks to legitimize the acquisition of land by force, all in violation of international law and the UN Charter.

On 28 January 2020, US President Donald Trump publicly announced the plan at the Whitehouse in Washington, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side.

“The US plan is a political stunt that patently disregards international law and how the rights of Palestinians are recognized and protected under international law,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.

The ICJ emphasized that any claims of sovereignty by Israel over parts of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, based on this plan would be null, void and of no effect.

The text of the US plan inaccurately asserts that Israel has “valid legal and historical claims over the West Bank” and notes that “[t]he State of Israel and the United States do not believe the State of Israel is legally bound to provide the Palestinians with 100 percent of pre-1967 territory.”

This position runs counter to numerous applicable UN Security Council Resolutions, including Resolution 242, which required Israel’s complete withdrawal from the territory occupied in 1967.

“Any settlement to the conflict between Israel and Palestine must be consistent with international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law,” Benarbia added. “This requires negotiations on an equal footing between the parties, optimally with broad international engagement, not simply an intervention by a single State.”

Israeli settlements are established in violation of article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the Occupying Power from transferring its own population into the occupied territory.

Their eventual incorporation into Israel would amount to unlawful annexation, in contravention of the prohibition of territorial acquisition by force established by the UN Charter and international law.

The US plan posits that “Jerusalem will remain the sovereign capital of the State of Israel,” apportioning to the State of Palestine the areas of the city beyond the separation barrier. It also denies the right to return of Palestinian refugees.

Effectively making Israel’s occupation of parts of the West Bank permanent, the US plan further provides that Israel will maintain “overriding security responsibility for the State of Palestine” and that the West Bank and Gaza should be fully demilitarized.

Contact

Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org

ICJ roundtable on impunity for crimes committed in Libya and implications for Europe

ICJ roundtable on impunity for crimes committed in Libya and implications for Europe

On 20 November 2019, the ICJ and Tineke Strik, Member of the European Parliament, hosted a roundtable discussion in Brussels on the ICJ’s report Accountability for Crimes under International Law in Libya: An Assessment of the Criminal Justice System.

Panelists called for the establishment of a Human Rights Council mandated Commission of Inquiry on Libya and for States to refrain from entering or implementing agreements that could give rise to support for or complicity in violations of international law.

They also called for the intensification of monitoring of Libyan Coast Guard operations and publication of its key findings, and for the European Commission to ensure its cooperation with Libyan authorities is conditional on meeting concrete, verifiable and timebound benchmarks.

At the launch, Said Benarbia and Kate Vigneswaran, MENA Programme Director and Senior Legal Adviser respectively, discussed the findings and recommendations of the ICJ’s report examining the criminal justice framework in Libya. The report finds that investigations and prosecutions of crimes under international law have been limited to a handful of cases, and substantial reforms to the legal framework are required to ensure fair and effective justice in future cases.

In light of the report’s findings, Marwa Mohammed, Head of Advocacy and Outreach for Lawyers for Justice in Libya, discussed the arbitrary detention of thousands of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers in Libya, systematic human rights violations and abuses being committed against them, and absence of options for protection, repatriation and return, including as a result of EU States’ policies.

Philippe Dam, Advocacy Director for Europe and Central Asia at Human Rights Watch, then discussed the engagement of the EU, European Commission and EU States with Libyan authorities, including in the context of violations and abuses committed against migrants, refugees and asylum seekers intercepted by the Libyan Coast Guard.

The panel was introduced by Karolina Babicka, Legal Advisor for the ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme, and moderated by Tinneke Strik. It was attended by representatives of the European Commission, the EEAS, UNHCR, non-government organizations and independent persons

South Africa: violent police action against asylum seekers and protestors must be investigated

South Africa: violent police action against asylum seekers and protestors must be investigated

The ICJ today expressed its grave concern at the conduct of police forces in their enforcement of a court order to remove refugees and asylum seekers from the offices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in Cape Town on October 30.

Police appeared to be using excessive and unlawful force, resulting in injuries to some protestors.

 The ICJ called for a prompt independent, impartial, and through investigation into the police conduct, with a view to holding account officials responsible for any ill-treatment and to prevent such methods of policing to recur.

While trying to remove largely peaceful protestors from the premises, police fired rubber bullets and stun grenades against refugees who were protesting in the streets of Cape Town last week. A video clip widely shared on social media showed police ripped a baby from a woman.

The court had granted an interdict to remove the group in Cape Town on October 18 at the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court following an application by the building landlord to evict the group. More than 100 protestors were arrested and released on warnings.

“The way refugees were treated in Cape Town on Wednesday is shameful.  South African authorities should be acting to protect migrants from the xenophobic violence and threats they have been experiencing, not to perpetuate them,” said Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa regional director.

Refugees and asylum seekers had staged a sit-in outside the UNHCR offices in Cape Town and Pretoria for four weeks now, pleading to be resettled outside of South Africa, claiming that they felt unsafe. They said that recent attacks on foreign nationals left them feeling unsafe in South Africa. (Read the ICJ statement on the attacks here.)

In a statement, the UNHCR said the organization had received concerns of personal safety, access to documentation, challenges accessing services, and lack of job opportunities from the asylum seekers and refugees who had been camping outside of its offices.

The statement also indicated that some of the protesting group had demanded resettlements, which were only available for a limited number of vulnerable refugees. The UNHCR said it had been engaging with the refugees and asylum seekers since the protests began, encouraging them to participate in constructive dialogue to address their grievances and find a peaceful resolution to the situation.

“We call on South African authorities the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to urgently address migrants’ concerns in a constructive and amicable manner before the situation escalates further,” Tsunga added.

Background

South African law and international law forbid the unnecessary and disproportionate use of force and protect people from ill-treatment. .

The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Standards provides that law enforcement officials must use restraint and may use force only where only where strictly necessary, and any such force must be proportionate to the legitimate object, such as making a lawful arrest and protecting the lives and safety of others.

South Africa is party of the African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which guaranteed from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including that resulting from unlawful use of force.

Contact

Arnold Tsunga (Director):                                   c: +26 37 7728 3249  e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org

Shaazia Ebrahim (Media Officer):                     c: +27 71 670 6719    e: shaazia.ebrahim(a)icj.org

Translate »