Tag Archives: International Court Of Justice

Israel’s conflict – how does this end? In short, controlled escalation: Si vis pacem para bellum: If you desire peace, prepare for war

International-Court-of-Justice

Important Takeaways:

  • Israel’s cause is the cause of the Free World as is Ukraine’s and Taiwan’s.
  • Domestic supporters of Hamas, trying to constrain Israel by “lawfare” and by noisy street and media politics, are therefore a fifth column for our enemies and should be treated as such.
  • Unsuccessful “lawfare” at the International Court of Justice served to narrow and make harder the road out of Gaza for all local parties. The biggest losers are those Arabs who are neither Islamists nor anti-Semites: for their territorial hopes have been written out of history at present by Hamas and Iran. Prosperity and tranquility for them will only return with resumption of the Abraham Accords…. Netanyahu is surely correct in stating that any attempt to push for a two-state solution at this moment would endanger Israel.
  • Globally, in the context of a developing worldwide multi-theatre and multi modal contest between the Free World and the dictatorships, the most humane and swiftest route to peace is controlled escalation on our terms which reaches out and helps Iranians to end the shaky and bloodstained regime of the Iranian ayatollahs.
  • The right sort of war – meaning war on Western terms, in which we and not our enemies have escalation dominance — is sometimes the most peace-friendly option
  • “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things”, John Stuart Mill wrote in his Principles of Political Economy.
  • “The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse…. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
  • Si vis pacem para bellum: if you desire peace, prepare for war. Given where we now are, it is the safer option both for Israel and the wider Free World.

Read the original article by clicking here.

World Court hears Iran lawsuit to have U.S. sanctions lifted

By Stephanie van den Berg and Toby Sterling

THE HAGUE (Reuters) – Iranian lawyers asked the International Court of Justice on Monday to order the United States to lift sanctions imposed by the Trump administration against Tehran, but Washington described the suit as meritless.

At the start of a week of hearings in The Hague, the court’s president asked the United States to respect the outcome of the case that Iran filed in July. During their decades of animosity, both countries have ignored some rulings at the court.

Tehran’s suit says the U.S. sanctions, which are damaging the already weak Iranian economy, violate terms of a little-known friendship treaty between the two countries.

“The U.S. is publicly propagating a policy intended to damage as severely as possible Iran’s economy and Iranian national companies, and therefore inevitably Iranian nationals,” said Mohsen Mohebi, representing Iran. “This policy is plainly in violation of the 1955 Treaty of Amity.”

He said Iran had sought a diplomatic solution to the countries’ dispute but was rejected.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo described Iran’s suit as “an attempt to interfere with the sovereign rights of the United States to take lawful actions, including re-imposition of sanctions, which are necessary to protect our national security”.

“We will vigorously defend against Iran’s meritless claims this week in The Hague,” he said in a statement.

A ruling is expected within a month, though no date has been set.

The ICJ is the United Nations tribunal for resolving international disputes. Its rulings are binding, but it has no power to enforce them.

U.S. President Donald Trump pulled out of a 2015 pact between Iran and major world powers under which sanctions were lifted in return for Tehran accepting curbs on its nuclear program. The Trump administration then announced unilateral plans to restore sanctions against Tehran.

Although Washington’s European allies protested against Trump’s move, most Western companies intend to adhere to the sanctions, preferring to lose business in Iran than be punished by the United States or barred from doing business there.

The United States and Iran have clashed at the court in the past since they became enemies after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution. Iran ignored a 1980 U.S. suit at the ICJ over the seizure of American diplomats in Tehran, which the court found to be illegal.

In another suit and countersuit, the ICJ found that the 1955 treaty was still valid even though it was signed before the revolution. However, the court found in 2003 that neither actions by the United States against Iranian oil platforms nor Iranian attacks on American shipping violated the treaty.

(Writing by Toby Sterling; Editing by David Goodman, Peter Graff and David Stamp)