The post NGOs hail UN resolution seeking referral of N. Korean abuses to ICC appeared first on UN Watch.

1. Hamas Says Gaza Not “Occupied,” But U.N. Disagrees

2. After Sarkozy tells Assad to go, UN Watch urges sending him to International Criminal Court
____________

Hamas Says Gaza Not “Occupied”; U.N. Disagrees

World Body Out of Step with Palestinians

GENEVA, Jan. 3 – The UN’s continued labeling of the Gaza Strip as “occupied” was directly contradicted today by a top leader of Hamas, the vehemently anti-Israel Palestinian terror group that controls the territory.

Noting the Hamas statement reflects the reality since Israel’s full withdrawal in 2005, the Geneva-based monitoring group UN Watch called on the UN to encourage Palestinians to take responsibility for areas they control, and to cease referring to Gaza, in reports and through officials and spokespeople, as “occupied territory.”

“The UN’s traditional practice of absolving Palestinians of responsibility hasn’t helped them one iota,” said Hillel Neuer, UN Watch executive director. “On the contrary, Palestinian citizens are the main losers when those that directly govern and police them are never seriously held accountable for their actions.”

“Now that the Palestinians running Gaza publicly regognize that it’s not occupied — which has been the reality since Israel’s disengagement removed every solider, civilian and setttlement in 2005 — the UN’s refusal to do the same will only hinder Palestinians from developing a healthy culture of self-rule,” said Neuer.

Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahhar confirmed there was no Israeli occupation of the territory in comments reported today by the Bethlehem-based Ma’an News Agency.

Zahhar was casting doubt on whether Hamas would organize anti-Israel marches in Gaza in conjunction with similar protests that the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority would organize in the West Bank.

“Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip? When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable,” Zahhar said, according to Ma’an.

The Hamas statement follows growing recognition among international lawyers that the UN’s resistance to holding Palestinians responsible for territory they control is outdated.

In a recent article in the American University International Law Review, legal scholar Elizabeth Samson explains that under the Geneva Conventions and international judicial precedents, Gaza can no longer be considered occupied as Israel no longer exercises “effective control.”

The Israeli Supreme Court also ruled on January 30, 2008 that Israel had disengaged from the Gaza Strip and had “no effective control over what occurred there.”

Instead, Samson argues, Gaza’s unique “intermediate” legal status should be recognized to allow the Palestinians to exercise complete autonomy, laying the groundwork for a Palestinian state existing peacefully beside Israel.

However, the UN’s official policy has not changed since Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s spokesman, Farhan Haq, declared in 2009 that “the U.N. defines Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory.”

The UN terminology continues to appear. A September 22 report in the name of Mr. Ban speaks of a UN mission’s visit to the “occupied Palestinian territory, specifically the Gaza Strip.” InMay, Richard Falk, the UN’s permanent investigator on alleged Israeli violations, referred to the “occupied Gaza Strip.” A UN fact sheet on “the Occupied Palestinian Territory” includes Gaza.

____________

After Sarkozy tells Assad to go, rights group urges US, France, UK to press for UN Security Council referral of Syria to International Criminal Court

Arab League mission to Syria called “toothless”

GENEVA, Jan. 3 – With French President Nicolas Sarkozy calling today for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to step aside for overseeing “disgusting” massacres, there should be stepped-up efforts in the UN Security Council to have Syrian leaders investigated for war crimes, urges a Geneva-based human rights group.

“Led by a former Sudanese general who himself has a highly questionable human rights record, the Arab League’s peace initiative has proven to be toothless with the Assad regime continuing to kill innocent civilians,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.

“The UN Security Council is the only body that can have the International Criminal Court launch an investigation because Syria signed but never ratified the court’s founding Rome Statute.”

“Opposition to a referral by Russia and China, which hold veto power in the Security Council, will appear all the more misplaced if the Council’s other three permanent members—the United States, France and Britain—press the issue in the open.”

Sarkozy told an audience of French military personnel Tuesday the “massacres being committed by the Syrian regime” have aroused disgust around the world, and that Assad should allow Syrians to decide their own future, the Associated Press reported.

Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, told the Security Council Dec. 13 that the widespread killings and torture in Syria “constituted crimes against humanity,” and that “there should be a referral to the International Criminal Court.”

The post Issue 335: UN Watch urges sending Assad to ICC appeared first on UN Watch.

Analysis: The best that can be said for a possible ICTY examination of NATO’s actions, is that it might confirm the impartiality and credibility of the tribunal.

NATO has nothing to fear from a fair, independent inquiry. The risk is that moral relativism and anti-Western attitudes could influence the examination. Such an outcome would detract from the serious pursuit of genuine war criminals in the former Yugoslavia.

Should an investigation take place, two issues require consideration:

1. What was the nature of NATO’s operations in Serbia?

2. What was NATO’s motivation?

NATO action was a multi-lateral undertaking by a collection of democratic states, as opposed to actions by a repressive dictator. NATO air strikes were carefully planned to avoid civilian casualties. Milosovic was targeting civilians.

NATO forces were not engaged in a war designed to gain material, territorial or other benefits. Rather, they were attempting to limit the brutal conduct which had brought them into action.

Bearing these factors in mind, the ICTY must decide if an investigation of NATO would advance or impede the original purpose of the tribunal: the prosecution of “persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law.”

If the ICTY chooses to investigate NATO’s actions, it must draw the distinction between those who try to save civilian populations, and those who try to destroy them.

The ICTY must also avoid strenuously the trap of moral relativists. Comparing NATO’s humanitarian campaign, that resulted in some civilian casualties, with the calculated devastation of a minority population, is unacceptable.

A balanced court room, truly driven to upholding humanitarian principles, may be led to investigate NATO action, but such a court would quickly dismiss the inquiry.

The post Issue 41: NATO and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia appeared first on UN Watch.

Analysis: Within the United States there are strong currents in favor of establishing a Court and developing a body of international criminal law. Nonetheless, concerns over the possible politicization of the Court, the qualifications of the judges, and the readiness of many states to attack the United States for its international activities, all led the United States to vote against the treaty.

One key reason for the U.S. vote against the treaty is the fact that most atrocities are committed by parties to internal conflicts of the same nationality. According to Ambassador David Scheffer, who headed the American delegation to Rome, “the worst offenders of international humanitarian law can choose never to join the treaty and be fully insulated from its reach absent a Security Council referral.” At the same time, multinational peacekeepers active in a country that has signed the treaty, could be held accountable by the Court.

If it were possible to establish a court that was truly independent; that met the highest standards of fairness, competence, and integrity; that was free from politicization; and that was faithful to the notions of the rule of law, then the world would be well served. This is the type of Court that should have been established in Rome, but American opposition makes the final outcome uncertain.

……………………………………………………..

Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland assumed the post of Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO) and began her tenure with new financial disclosure rules for senior WHO officials.

Analysis: By starting her term with guidelines for personal financial ethics, including the potential obligation to divest oneself of holdings that could lead to a conflict of interest, Dr. Brundtland has begun to confront the mismanagement that marred the Organization under her predecessor.

These new rules are only part of the battle. The need for greater responsibility in managing the affairs of the WHO – from financial accountability to the proper awarding of consulting contracts – must be rigorously addressed throughout the Organization. With an annual budget of around $1 billion, Dr. Brundtland and her team must foster an organizational culture that demands sound and responsible decision-making. Dr. Brundtland is off to a promising start, and she may yet join Sadako Ogata, High Commissioner for Refugees, as a model for all senior UN leaders.

The post Issue 9: The creation of an International Criminal Court; and new financial disclosure rules instituted at the World Health Organization appeared first on UN Watch.

Analysis: Readers will recall that in our 3 June 1998 edition, we wistfully suggested that all UN employees be required to reapply for their jobs. According to well-placed individuals within the UN, Dr. Brundtland has done just that, asking for the resignation of all top management officials at the WHO, even before she officially assumes her post.

Clearing the decks makes good sense. This move allows Dr. Brundtland to staff her operation with people she feels meet the rigorous UN standards of “competence, efficiency, and integrity,” while also sending a no-nonsense message throughout the organization, a tone we hope will endure throughout Dr. Brundtland’s term.

As the Rome Conference on the establishment of an International Criminal Court (ICC) proceeds, countries have split on the role of the Security Council and the powers of a prosecutor.

Analysis: While we fully support the establishment of a permanent criminal court, key issues remain to be solved. Though a majority of governments support an independent prosecutor who could launch investigations without first requesting permission from the Security Council or Member States, several countries including the United States, Russia, and China are opposed. These countries insist the Security Council should determine which cases are referred for prosecution.

It might be instructive to look at existing treaty bodies, like the Committee against Torture and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, to highlight some legitimate concerns. The “independent experts of high moral standing” comprising these bodies – furnished with a mandate to monitor the application of these conventions – are elected by states, and are supposed to be independent and non-political. Truth to say, though many experts are of high quality, too many others are insufficiently informed or are politically motivated. While an International Criminal Court is necessary, it can not be allowed to assume the worst aspects of present treaty bodies. For the ICC to function, prosecutors must be wholly independent (of state governments and other UN organs), and jurists of the highest quality.

The post Issue 7: Director-General of the World Health Organization asks senior management to resign; and a key issue to be resolved in the creation of the International Criminal Court appeared first on UN Watch.