Israeli Repression and the Language of Liars

[Roland]

IL basically consists of:

treaties
customary law
generelly acknowledged principles of law
acts of international organisations

Customary law is created by consuetudo and opinio iuris (iow, we've been doing this for a while, and we think it's the law). There are problems with this concept esp regarding consuetudo vs effectiveness problems of IL, but you could always go for "generally accepted principles" unless you have a persistent objector.

Most law of war is considered to have been extended this way to all nations, and also the applicability of certain rules to domestic armed conflicts.

I'm sure ASIL has some stuff about this, esp in the articles about the Taliban fighters and POW status.

http://www.asil.org/

[TCO]

Is your interpretations universal? Or just among academics of one stripe?

Given the recent "boom industry" in international law, I have a hard time taking "customary law" as a component of it. Customary law implies a longer time horizon.

And is your view on treaties being binding to non-signatories...is that view general?

[TCO]

Is "customary law" common law? And how should countries which don't believe in common law (having a legal tradition or philosophy that recognizes only statutory law) be bound by customary international law?

[Roland]

"Is your interpretations universal?"

Which one ?

"Customary law implies a longer time horizon."

How long would you say ?

"And is your view on treaties being binding to non-signatories...is that view general?"

That the rules of treaties can be identical with rules of customary law - that principle is undisputed.

[Roland]

"Is "customary law" common law?"

There are similarities, but I wouldn't overstress them.

"And how should countries which don't believe in common law (having a legal tradition or philosophy that recognizes only statutory law) be bound by customary international law?"

That's separate from domestic law. As for domestic application, eg Art 9 austrian const or Art 20 german const simply say that those rules "are part of federal law".

[TCO]

Originally posted by Roland
"Is your interpretations universal?"

Which one ?

"Customary law implies a longer time horizon."

Longer than it has been trendy to try to make "international law" something other than a few treaties...

How long would you say

Longer than it has been trendy to try to make "international law" something other than a few treaties...

Ok...you're the one invoking it...tell me what time horizon is generally accepted for this sort of thing....the "we've always done it this way" fancy Latin phrase. I really wonder if the elavation of international law to International Law has been for very long, now...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Roland
"Is "customary law" common law?"

There are similarities, but I wouldn't overstress them.

Is common law also determined by those same fancy Latin phrases, which you quoted?

[TCO]

Is it really reasonable to say "something has become part of customary law" and as such is binding when there is a treaty governing this issue (meaning statutory law exists in the this area) and when one of the parties may have had the opportunity to sign the treaty and deliberately decided not to?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Roland
"Is your interpretations universal?"

Which one ?

The belief that there is a real field of International Law other than the treaties of states.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Roland
"Is "customary law" common law?"

There are similarities, but I wouldn't overstress them.

"And how should countries which don't believe in common law (having a legal tradition or philosophy that recognizes only statutory law) be bound by customary international law?"

That's separate from domestic law. As for domestic application, eg Art 9 austrian const or Art 20 german const simply say that those rules "are part of federal law".

1. Is it generally accepted among German legal scholars that intenational common customary law is a part of the Federal code? For instance does this rule actually state that "customary law" is invoked or does it apply to written law?


2. Any other countries that have a philosophy of statutory law philosphy? Do they got these rules too?

[Roland]

"Longer than it has been trendy to try to make "international law" something other than a few treaties..."

I think that modern international law starts with Grotius, and customary law (intertwined with natural law) has been there from the beginning. A quick search turned up this:

http://www.law.emory.edu/EILR/volumes/spring96/bederman.html

"tell me what time horizon is generally accepted for this sort of thing...."

Would have to look it up. Originally I would have said a generation, but the world is becoming faster...

"I really wonder if the elavation of international law to International Law has been for very long, now..."

I genuinely do not understand this "wonder".

"Is common law also determined by those same fancy Latin phrases, which you quoted?"

No there are fancy english phrases for it.

"... when one of the parties may have had the opportunity to sign the treaty and deliberately decided not to?"

If it adopts it as customary law in state practice, yes. If a state does not want to be bound, it has to object.

"The belief that there is a real field of International Law other than the treaties of states."

I'm not aware of any disputes on the sources of law.

"1. Is it generally accepted among German legal scholars that intenational [strike]common[/strike] customary law is a part of the Federal code?"

What do you mean by "common" ? As for customary law, the constitution explicitly states so.

"For instance does this rule actually state that "customary law" is invoked or does it apply to written law?"

It refers to "allgemeine Regeln des Völkerrechts", which is essentially the non-treaty-based law.

"2. Any other countries that have a philosophy of statutory law philosphy? Do they got these rules too?"

Besides Art 25 germany and Art 9 austria: The preambel of the french const/1946, Art 28 Greece, Art 10 Italy, Art 8 Portugal - and no, I'm not going to skim through all constitutions...

[Ned]

Roland, Not bad. But observe that Jordan and Egypt conquered the portions of Palestine that it occuppied. Jordan annexed the West Bank. Virtually no one recognized the annexation.

That territory never became Jordanian or Egyption territory under international law. Jordan giving up its "claim" is meaningless in the present context.

The only "customary" international law on civil wars that I know if does not prevent the prevailing party from resettling in areas they conquered from the rebels. The U.S. Civil War is one example.

That Sharon's motive's may be impure is potentially relevant to a cautionary stance. However, his actions and the actions of Israel are what are in question.

If Sharon is indeed the problem, then Europe's anti-Israel stance should shift dramatically if a leftist takes power in Israel, not so?

Just one final point in case it comes up: It is said that the Oslo agreement required Israel to withdraw from more territory than its final offer at Camp David, and that this final offer makes Israel the aggressor. However, IIRC, the Olso offer was conditional. The condition was an end to terror. That did not happen, did it?

[Roland]

"Jordan annexed the West Bank. Virtually no one recognized the annexation."

That's new to me. Be that as it may, who was then internationally recognised as sovereign over the westbank from 1949-1967 ?

"The only "customary" international law on civil wars that I know if does not prevent the prevailing party from resettling in areas they conquered from the rebels. The U.S. Civil War is one example."

The US civil war is a bit old. We do not have a civil war occupation situation here. And we do not have a reintegration into one state as we had in 1865. So I fail to see what this argument does.

"However, his actions and the actions of Israel are what are in question."

Indeed. So if Sharon kills palestinian civilians as inevitable victims of security operations with the ail to end terror, it is different from Sharon kills palestinian civilians as inevitable victims of a war for territory.

"If Sharon is indeed the problem, then Europe's anti-Israel stance should shift dramatically if a leftist takes power in Israel, not so?"

There is no anti-Israel stance. There is an anti-Sharon stance at best. And it's not a left-right issue, but one of being ready to make a deal. Not Sharon's "I won't give up a single settlement even in the middle of ****ing nowhere".

"It is said that the Oslo agreement required Israel to withdraw from more territory than its final offer at Camp David, and that this final offer makes Israel the aggressor."

Whoever says that is talking bull****.

[Ned]

From 1948-67, the areas conquered by Jordan and Egypt remained "disputed." IIRC, the UN and most of the world continued to insist that UN governed the disputed territories with the withdrawal of the British and that they had decided to create a Palestinian state, not give the territories to Jordan and Egypt. I believe it was UN policy to get Jordan and Egypt to withdraw in favor of a Palestinian state.

[Roland]

"I believe it was UN policy to get Jordan and Egypt to withdraw in favor of a Palestinian state."

Even if that is so: If Jordan has no claim to the land under your logic, neither has Israel.

If I have the time I might try to find a source on the legal status of the westbank from 1949-1967.