INTERNATIONAL LAW IS NOT A POLITICAL TOOL!
July 24, 2024Simon Lewis, a reporter, questions Matthew Miller, the US spokesperson, about their refusal to accept the ICJ ruling on Israel.
“If you’re basically saying we sort of see this court’s opinion as useful. But that’s not really what courts are for, right? They’re not…so they’re not there as bodies to make useful political interventions in issues.”
The US’ rejection of the ICJ ruling is purely POLITICAL! Will courts rule against your political interest? OF COURSE!! That’s why they’re independent systems.
This is the bastion of “human rights” and “world order” we’re talking about.
@assalrad
If you advocate for TRUTH & JUSTICE, SHARE to spread the knowledge.
English Script:
Simon Lewis: Right. But I think, like, what Said was kind of getting at, if you’re basically saying we sort of see this court’s opinion as useful. But that’s not really what courts are for, right? They’re not…so they’re not there as bodies to make useful political interventions in issues. This is an issue where you say you support international law, but in international law, the concept of international law means that there are courts that can rule on these kinds of things, right? And now we’ve got the ICC and the ICJ have both taken actions regarding Israel in the last few months, and in both cases you’ve sort of pretty strongly spoken out about those courts’ interventions. So how can you say that you support international law when whenever the bodies of international law act, you denounce it?
Mathew Miller: So various parties or observers to international fora or courts here can both respect a court system and disagree with rulings that courts make. You see that all the time, just thinking about domestically here at home, where an administration can respect the work that the courts do but disagree with an individual, that ruling that comes down, be concerned about the practical implications of a decision that a court makes, plan to an appeal. It is, I think, keeping in practice with the way people respond to court decisions all around the world, and it’s the case here where we can respect the role that the courts play but also be concerned with the implications of decisions that they make. And when we have those concerns, I think it’s incumbent upon us to give voice to them.
Simon Lewis: And…but by doing that, you’re kind of…you’re signaling to your ally Israel that it doesn’t need to follow those rulings.
Mathew Miller: So this was an advisory ruling, first of all, but I think what it signals is that when we have concerns we’re going to speak to them publicly.
Related News
