1-10
I am going to triple-down on this, because Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine reveals the moral failure of international organisations, and quite specifically of current interpretations of humanitarian and human rights principles. And there is a structure to it.
I am going to triple-down on this, because Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine reveals the moral failure of international organisations, and quite specifically of current interpretations of humanitarian and human rights principles. And there is a structure to it.
https://twitter.com/EHunterChristie/status/1555522674385977344
2-10
What do I mean? Well, go over to the #ICRC website - another august institution whose reputation has been severely damaged in 2022 due to its attitude to the Russia-Ukraine war.
icrc.org/en/document/wh…
What do I mean? Well, go over to the #ICRC website - another august institution whose reputation has been severely damaged in 2022 due to its attitude to the Russia-Ukraine war.
icrc.org/en/document/wh…
3-10
ICRC page:
"IHL applies to the belligerent parties irrespective of the reasons for the conflict or the justness of the causes for which they are fighting... otherwise, implementing the law would be impossible, since every party would claim to be a victim of aggression."
ICRC page:
"IHL applies to the belligerent parties irrespective of the reasons for the conflict or the justness of the causes for which they are fighting... otherwise, implementing the law would be impossible, since every party would claim to be a victim of aggression."
4-10
Let's unpack that nonsense. By the same argument of every party making claims, one would also not bother with IHL - it happens *all the time* that one party says the target over there was a legitimate military target, the other side says it wasn't. Do we give up on IHL too?
Let's unpack that nonsense. By the same argument of every party making claims, one would also not bother with IHL - it happens *all the time* that one party says the target over there was a legitimate military target, the other side says it wasn't. Do we give up on IHL too?
5-10
Of course ICRC, AI, and others do not - it's their bread-and-butter. But note the dishonest argumentation. I suspect that they over-emphasize the disconnection between jus ad bellum and jus in bello because they deal only with the latter and want to insert themselves...
Of course ICRC, AI, and others do not - it's their bread-and-butter. But note the dishonest argumentation. I suspect that they over-emphasize the disconnection between jus ad bellum and jus in bello because they deal only with the latter and want to insert themselves...
6-10
...and be relevant in as many cases as possible. From a good place of aiming at reducing human suffering? Yes I believe that is the *initial* motivation for those who work for such organisations. But specialisation leads to lack of moral and legal clarity and courage.
...and be relevant in as many cases as possible. From a good place of aiming at reducing human suffering? Yes I believe that is the *initial* motivation for those who work for such organisations. But specialisation leads to lack of moral and legal clarity and courage.
7-10
I reject the notion that jus in bello should be assessed irrespective of "the reasons for the conflict or the justness of the causes". Sure, we must have universal principles that apply to all parties. For example no to summary executions or torture of prisoners of war.
I reject the notion that jus in bello should be assessed irrespective of "the reasons for the conflict or the justness of the causes". Sure, we must have universal principles that apply to all parties. For example no to summary executions or torture of prisoners of war.
8-10
But a *complete* separation of the two bodies of law is nonsensical because it destroys elementary context and effectively switches off an entire body of law. How can that be a sensible approach?
But a *complete* separation of the two bodies of law is nonsensical because it destroys elementary context and effectively switches off an entire body of law. How can that be a sensible approach?
9-10
How can core IHL principles such as necessity, proportionality, or distinction be applied *identically* to two warring nations, in the case where one of them launched an unprovoked war of aggression while the other is purely in self-defence on its own territory?
How can core IHL principles such as necessity, proportionality, or distinction be applied *identically* to two warring nations, in the case where one of them launched an unprovoked war of aggression while the other is purely in self-defence on its own territory?
10-10
Both logic and the common human yearning for justice compels us to demand that IHL be reconnected with jus ad bellum considerations, and that the distorting purism of organisations such as @ICRC and @amnesty be brought to an end.
Both logic and the common human yearning for justice compels us to demand that IHL be reconnected with jus ad bellum considerations, and that the distorting purism of organisations such as @ICRC and @amnesty be brought to an end.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
