web analytics
September 15, 2014 / 20 Elul, 5774
At a Glance
In Print
Sponsored Post
Apartment 758x530 Africa-Israel at the Israel Real Estate Exhibition in New York

Africa Israel Residences, part of the Africa Israel Investments Group led by international businessman Lev Leviev, will present 7 leading projects on the The Israel Real Estate Exhibition in New York on Sep 14-15, 2014.



Learning From The Past: Some Current Implications Of An Earlier Indifference To Israel’s Basic Rights Under International Law


Beres-Louis-Rene

Every state has an inherent right of self-defense. Participating in the prosecution of Saddam Hussein for prior aggression against Israel would have been an authoritative expression of this right. According to Emmerich de Vattel’s classic 1758 text on The Law of Nations, “The right to punish injustice is derived from the right of self-protection.” Moreover, the right of self-defense in international law is drawn from Natural Law or Higher Law, and can, therefore, never be subordinated to particular international agreements, or even to certain pragmatic considerations of geopolitics.

Natural Law, which is the true basis of all international law, stems from the Decalogue (Ten Commandments), and the Covenant Code of Israel. Natural Law is expressed not only in the Declaration of Independence but also in the Bill of Rights. The Ninth Amendment, in stipulating that “the enumeration of certain rights in this Constitution shall not prejudice other rights not so enumerated,” reflects belief in a Higher Law that is superior to the will of all human governance.

According to correct legal procedure, Israel certainly ought to have been permitted to prepare a formal criminal complaint against Saddam Hussein, and then to file the relevant documents with the Iraqi Special Tribunal.  Jerusalem’s next step should have been in the United Nations. There, in the General Assembly, Israel could have called upon that body to promptly request an Advisory Opinion on relevant Israeli charges from the International Court of Justice.

An Advisory Opinion in the matter of Israel and Saddam Hussein could also have been requested by the United States in the Security Council. The American obligation to render such assistance to Israel would have derived not only from the Constitutional incorporation of international law into United States law (see especially Article 6 of the US Constitution), but also from the Natural Law foundations of U.S. law.  Any U.S. initiative to punish Saddam Hussein’s crime of aggression against Israel would thus have represented essential support for both international law, and for America’s own most sacred principles of justice.

So, at a time when Israel’s basic rights under international law are again being expressly disregarded, it is sobering to remember that Jerusalem has been down this same battered path before. This time, however, the consequences of global legal indifference could be far more serious.. This time, especially if Palestinian statehood receives successful UN endorsement, a “One State Solution” would be implemented, probably in sequential and synergistic increments.  In the presumed interests of self-determination, always a convenient jurisprudential objective, a new terror state would wholly replace Israel. This 23rd Arab state, of course, would be called Palestine.

About the Author: Louis René Beres, strategic and military affairs columnist for The Jewish Press, is professor of Political Science at Purdue University. Educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), he lectures and publishes widely on international relations and international law and is the author of ten major books in the field. In Israel, Professor Beres was chair of Project Daniel.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Learning From The Past: Some Current Implications Of An Earlier Indifference To Israel’s Basic Rights Under International Law”

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
Ramallah-based Fatah leader and Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman  Mahmoud Abbas still leads the faltering Palestinian Authority "unity government," which includes Gaza's ruling Hamas terrorist organization.
Abbas to Request France Recognize PA State
More Articles from Louis Rene Beres
Louis Rene Beres

President Obama’s core argument on a Middle East peace process is still founded on incorrect assumptions.

Louis Rene Beres

Once upon a time in America, every adult could recite at least some Spenglerian theory of decline.

President Obama’s core argument is still founded on incorrect assumptions.

Specific strategic lessons from the Bar Kokhba rebellion.

Still facing an effectively unhindered nuclear threat from Iran, Israel will soon need to choose between two strategic options.

For states, as for individuals, fear and reality go together naturally.

So much of the struggle between Israel and the Arabs continues to concern space.

An undifferentiated or across-the-board commitment to nuclear ambiguity could prove harmful to Israel’s’s overall security.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/in-print/from-the-paper/learning-from-the-past-some-current-implications-of-an-earlier-indifference-to-israels-basic-rights-under-international-law/2011/10/26/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: