Today in “how can we make things worse” the Secretary of State for Justice introduces a new distinction between breaches of international law that CAN be fudged and those that CANNOT be fudged. Why does that make things worse? /1
It entrenches the prevailing myth that lawyers are willing to and somehow can “fudge” almost everything. That justice is an infinitely malleable concept. For our partners?... /2
For our partners the message is serious. The provisions in this treaty are exceptional in their clarity. Take sect. 43. It gives the secretary of state the power to make regulations “disapplying ... Article 10” of the NI Protocol of the WA. Or sect. 45 /3
Sect. 45 explicitly states that the problematic provisions of 42 and 43 shall have effect “notwithstanding any relevant international or domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent.” /4
If these are the types of provisions that “can be fudged” it is rather difficult to see which ones cannot.
In short: please all stop making things worse with half-thought out ideas. Rather say nothing. Just say “we have all heard enough on the issue.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I know some will brush off @RishiSunak 's comments on the ECtHR and the ECHR as irrelevant given that his days in office are almost over. They are not. They are dangerous for the UK and show some politicians have not learned a thing. Why? /1
First: Once again a UK leader makes a commitment to leave an international system to limit immigration without any regard to the impact of leaving. That impact? /2
The UK was instrumental in drafting the ECHR. The agreement is at the core of the Council of Europe, underlies the good Friday agreement and the TCA. Leaving it means the UK leaves the CoE, destroys the Belfast Agreement and ultimately terminates significant chunks of the TCA. /3
Sorry to emphasize this again, but please note the "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" aspect of the case, which weirdly is often left out of commentary on the ICJ case. It is incredibly important. /1
South Africa submitted numerous statements that show that a cavalier attitude has developed to say truly horrendous things. Now that does not equal showing a state policy of genocide. But it is deeply troubling. And the court decided to remind Israel of what needs to be done /2
And the order of the Court in this regard is all the more stronger by who voted for it: Also Israel's ad hoc judge Barak, the former President of Israel's Supreme Court. /3
Some thoughts on the South Africa-Israel case before the ICJ, as I am unhappy with some comments. I’ll try to keep this untechnical. /1
1) South Africa files the case as a state party to the genocide convention against Israel as another state party alleging violations of the convention. This is permissible, as every state party is held to have an interest in upholding the convention.
2) This is not the first time that this has happened. The Gambia has filed a case concerning genocide against Myanmar. If you are interested… icj-cij.org/case/178
Ofcom has published a list of swearwords by degree of offensiveness, which really is a f****** great service for non-native speakers. So here it is (thread)