When International Law is Neither International or Law? – Vedio Link
On September 27, 2024, the HRUG regular seminar on “When International Law is neither international or Law? Using Palestine Israel Conflict as example” was successfully held. The seminar was chaired by Joe Finnerty (a social policy analyst) and presented by Féilim Ó hAdhmaill (a lecturer), School of Applied Social Studies, University College Cork, Republic of Ireland. This seminar centered on the application and implementation of international law (particularly international human rights law and international humanitarian law) in the Palestine-Israel conflict. Professor Peter Herrmann (a researcher of CSU Human Rights Center), Professor Isaac Khambule of Political Economy at University of Johannesburg in South Africa, Mehmet Okyayuz (a professor of political science at Middle East Technical University, Turkey), Krish Chetty (a senior researcher of the Human Science Research Council, South Africa), Associate Professor Li Juan (a researcher of CSU Human Rights Center) and Wang Huiru (the Assistant Researcher, Institute of International Law of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) participated in this discussion.
Féilim Ó hAdhmaill took international human rights law and international humanitarian law as examples to analyze why international law is neither fully “international” nor has sufficient legal binding force. Current international law is formulated under the dominance of a few Western countries and mainly reflects Western ideas of human rights, thus it is not fully “international”. At the same time, international law is not applied equally to all countries. Some countries are not subject to corresponding sanctions when they violate international law, so it lacks legal binding force. He pointed out that under the current international law system, the formulation and effective implementation of international law require the firm support of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Subsequently, he reviewed the historical background, development process of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the international law issues involved. He emphasized that although the United Nations and the international community have tried to resolve this conflict through a number of resolutions, many important resolutions have not been effectively implemented due to the political games among major powers. This has resulted in a continuous tense situation and a humanitarian crisis. Today, Palestinian territory is illegally occupied, a large number of Palestinians have become refugees and find it difficult to return to their homes. Women and children have become the main victims of the war. Finally, he clarified his view: advancing the cause of human rights will inevitably face obstruction from powerful economic and political interests, but there is still room for the further application of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Despite various challenges, more than half of the United Nations member states recognize Palestine as a sovereign state, which reflects the international community’s support for the just cause of Palestine.
Peter Herrmann believed that the law is not bestowed by the natural law tradition but is the product of disputes. Although international law is currently facing challenges from multiple factors, it is inappropriate to deny the effectiveness of international law just because of the occurrence of illegal acts. However, Féilim Ó hAdhmaill stated that if a law is stipulated but there is no subject to abide by it, then it can hardly be regarded as a real law. In reality, some major powers abuse their hegemony and wantonly interfere in the internal affairs of other countries to promote and realize their own interests. The nationalist policies of some countries and regions ignore the interests of some social groups and make it difficult to promote the process of regional peace and unity.
Wang Huiru argued that the weakness of enforcement mechanism doesn’t mean the failure of the normative function of international law. International law includes not only written international treaties but also customary international law. She mentioned that to become a country in the sense of international law, it is necessary to meet essential basic elements such as population, government, territory, and sovereignty. Palestine still needs to fight for national sovereignty and the protection of its territory. But this doesn’t prevent the International Criminal Court from recognizing the application of international human rights law and international humanitarian law to the Israel-Palestine conflict and investigating the war crimes committed by Israel in this region. The International Criminal Court exercises jurisdiction through the actual connection between the conflict area and Palestine, which is also an expression of the function of international law.
Li Juan believed that the authority of international rules is deeply rooted in the soil of morality and politics. This means that in the absence of political power or law enforcement capabilities, the implementation of international law will face major challenges. She emphasized that the international community needs to conduct in-depth reflection and evaluation of the current international law and its operation mechanisms in order to more effectively give play to the role of international law and ensure its authority and enforcement on the global stage. Through such reflection, the improvement of international law rules can be promoted, and their adaptability and effectiveness can be enhanced, so as to better serve the common interests of the international community.
中南大学人权研究中心研究员Peter Herrmann教授、南非约翰内斯堡大学政治经济学教授Isaac Khambule、土耳其中东科技大学政治学教授Mehmet Okyayuz、南非人类科学研究委员会高级研究员Krish Chetty、中南大学人权研究中心研究员黎娟副教授以及中国社会科学院国际法研究所助理研究员王惠茹等人参与了此次讨论。
Féilim Ó hAdhmaill以国际人权法和国际人道主义法为例，分析了国际法既不具有完全的“国际性”也不具备充分的法律约束力的原因。当前国际法由少数西方国家主导制定，主要体现西方的人权思想，因此不具有完全的“国际性”；同时，国际法并非平等地适用于所有国家，某些国家在违反国际法时未受到相应制裁，因此不具备法律约束力。他指出，在当前国际法体系下，国际法的制定与有效执行需要联合国安理会常任理事国的坚定支持。
随后，他回顾了巴以冲突的历史背景、发展过程及所涉及的国际法问题。他强调，虽然联合国和国际社会曾试图通过多项决议来解决这一冲突，但因大国之间的政治博弈，许多重要决议未能得到有效执行，以致造成了持续的紧张局势和人道主义危机。如今，巴勒斯坦的领土被非法占领，大量巴勒斯坦人成为难民，难以返回家园，妇女和儿童更是成为战争的主要受害者。最后，他阐明了自己的观点：推进人权事业必然会面临来自强大经济和政治利益的阻挠，但国际人权法和国际人道主义法仍然存在着进一步应用的空间。尽管面临种种挑战，但仍有超过半数的联合国会员国承认巴勒斯坦为主权国家，这体现了国际社会对巴勒斯坦正义事业的支持。
Peter Herrmann认为，法律并非由自然法传统所赋予，而是争议下的产物。尽管当下国际法正面临着多重因素的挑战，但若因为非法行为的发生就否定国际法的有效性，是不恰当的。Féilim Ó hAdhmaill则表示，如果一部法律规定出来却没有主体去遵守，那么它就难以被认为是真正的法律。现实中，一些大国滥用霸权，肆意干涉他国内政，以推动实现自身利益。部分国家和地区的民族主义政策忽略了部分社会群体的利益，难以推动地区和平统一的进程。
王惠茹认为，国际法执行机制的薄弱并不意味着国际法规范功能的失效。国际法不仅包括成文的国际性条约，还包括习惯国际法。她提到，成为国际法意义上的国家需要满足人口、政府、领土和主权等必不可少的基本要素；巴勒斯坦目前仍需要为国家主权、保护本国领土而进行斗争。但这并不妨碍国际刑事法院承认国际人权法和国际人道主义法适用于巴以冲突，并调查以色列在该地区犯下的战争罪行。国际刑事法院通过冲突地区与巴勒斯坦的实际联系来行使管辖权，这也是国际法发挥自身功能的表现。
黎娟认为，国际规则的权威根基深植于道德和政治的土壤之中。这意味着，在缺乏政治力量或执法能力的情形下，国际法的执行将面临重大挑战。她强调，国际社会有必要对现行的国际法制定和运作机制进行深入地反思与评估，以便更有效地发挥国际法的作用，确保其在全球舞台上的权威性和执行力。通过这样的反思，可以促进国际法规则的完善，增强其适应性和实效性，从而更好地服务于国际社会的共同利益。
(Transcription: Daihe Wang, Yaxing Bai; Translation: Yaxing Bai)