This is Shander, who is the supervisor at Public Interest Lawyers, which is based in Birmingham,
United Kingdom.
Shander is a lawyer who is known for his work and writings on issues of international environment
and human rights law.
He has been practicing as a face-to-face solicitor in the UK's implementation of the program.
In February 2009, in cooperation with the Amalek's Human Rights Organization,
he filed a claim for a traditional review called High Court of England and Lawyers,
challenging the government of the UK over its failure to put in disobligations of international
law with respect to his recent reviews in New York High Court of England.
Mr. Shander and his team are currently acting for over 70-70 former Iraqi detainees who alleged
that they are or their family members were in legal torture or killed by UK forces in
Iraq.
Mr. Shander is a visiting professor at London Metropolitan University and a history fellow
at the London School of Economics.
He was the name's human rights lawyer of the year by the Trump Liberty and Justice
Awards in the year 2004.
It's a great honour to be here and what I want to do in this moment is try and press
to tell you how very important it is to understand the status of international law,
how important it is to understand the status of international law,
and with respect to the obligations of other states.
So it is not my job as an active lawyer to talk with a great deal about how the situation
is because people almost know that and it's hopefully set out in Afghanistan at all.
So I'm going to be talking about what obligations there are of other states and how that will
impact on any European human state with some sort of reference to my own state in the UK.
The advantageous appearance of Joghari at the top is in my view extremely helpful.
Of course it doesn't carry away any enforcement and it is nearly the territory of the law
but there's a very good stance in the case with respect to what is happening now,
first operation in Afghanistan.
As you probably know there are 11 different breaches that the ICEJ identified for Israel
and there's an act of power that's in place only for 30, 409, 253, and I'm not going to go through them.
I'm going to concentrate on what was known as the parental law or the other codes and norms.
That's probably a familiar term to you but it's basically the law's way of rationalising
that there are some things that no states may ever do.
So no states may ever commit genocide, states may never torture, states may never use an
awful system or sort of slavery by stating never why territories are fought
and states must always recognise the rights of some determination.
So instantly one can see in the ICEJ opinion from July 2004 that the ICEJ has identified
three different Joghari norms that Israel has breached
and that is a very important starting point for understanding of a position for other states
which ICEJ is crystal clear and that all states are in clear breach of what for me
is very simple and easy to understand international law.
One can go to 159 of the opinion and there they all are, they're set up there in terms of
what the other states must do, bearing in mind that the structure, the framework of the
agreement is that Israel is in breach of the rights of the generation, the prohibition of annexation of land or force and also the international principles of international humanitarian law.
So you go to the power of 159 and there are the obligations of other states set up with absolute flourishing.
The first one, all states are under an obligation not to recognise the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall.
The second, under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction.
The third, they must see that any impediment resulting from the construction of the walls, the exiles or the passengers,
the people of Israel, the self-determination brought to them and the last, they must ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law
and in particular the Geneva Convention on the Crime and Protection of Civil Inversion in Prevention 4.
They might say, well what's that got to do with the position we find ourselves in March 2010
because this opinion is actually about construction of the wall, it's not about the position in the space like a house that continues and operation can stay.
And the answer is, well it just so happens that what the ICJ very, very deliberately done is told us in that cover,
the relevant legal instance, because the language that they adopted in Caroline 2009,
deliberately echoes the relevant article from the Office of State Responsibility of the International Law Commission.
The International Operations Articles of Chapter 3 deal with what are said to be serious violations
and in particular off-premise rules.
So part of Article 41 of Article 1 states shall operate for brings an end to the law that means any serious breach of the law is causing.
And soon, no state shall recognise that lawful, a situation created by serious breaches in the Geneva Article 14,
nor render aid or assistance to the main centre of that situation, and you can hear the deliverer of elements in paragraph 159 of Article 41.
And Article 41 essentially is the article that we relied on in the other act that West Ham may reference to.
In the end, our judicial system refused to accept the case, saying that it was not,
the mass of the general jury was non-justiciable, which was a very shame,
because I think it would be a walk in the park, in terms of what the international law obligations were in respect to the UK,
if we managed to get food through that particular hurdle.
So the askings of state responsibility are, we say, questionings national law,
if they're questionings national law, then that means that they're part of the front-law of the UK,
and they will be part of the jurisdiction of other European Union states.
And one of the things that I think we can ask the rest of the tribunal,
and perhaps I'm going to hear from that shortly, is an idea that all we need to do is find
which European Union states are best placed to allow a simple action, a direct action,
and other actions that we take about arms sales, to be brought forward.
And we pause and think about what I know the UK has done.
From July 2004, it had a motivation, it strongly had a motivation,
but it must also render aid or assistance in respect to ending the human destruction of the war.
And clearly, that motivation would be in play from 27 December 2008 onwards
when the attacks of Operation Cass State started off.
Now, at a very point when Israel must have been preparing for Operation Cass State,
our arms sales reached an all-time high.
Since 2004, there were 12 million a year who go on to export our assistance system.
In 2008, when it came to that, in 2004, in the first quarter of 2008, they jumped 20 million.
As you know, including a lot of components to naval vessels,
which obviously have been indicated in the attacks on the Russian garrison.
At the same time, despite every effort that could be made domestically,
the UK government refuses to do anything about the EU-Israeli Association of Human
Nations, and the thought speaks into language which I don't even recognize,
necessarily complementary.
One of the many observations the UK government has lost for the State of America
is they must demand what's happened, and they must cooperate with other states
who will use to bring the situation to an end.
So where does that lead us?
And before I forget, I want to also remember that the third Yoskosian law
that the ISJ talked about is the breach of the International Criminal Principles
of International Humanitarian Law.
Again, one only needs to click through the page of Goldstone Court to see
that there are various references to weapon systems by the Yoskos
that will be smacked in the middle of the breach of that principle of discrimination,
various attacks on civilians, and then you can go through half the layers
of the gross statute and you can start ticking the various definitions of war crimes
and life in companies, what's the place and operation has they.
So I want to turn then to what can be done about it.
We have two actions in the UK.
The first action, which I haven't done at all for a while,
concerns the UK's arms exporter system, and sadly that loss,
and the second case that hackers are talking about.
The third case is something that we are working on,
and it concerns the EU Israel Association doing that.
I think what I said is that all states are obligated not to lend their aid or assistance,
and report what I said about after 41 of the International Commission's
arms exporter system.
So string to the value that I want to consider,
that if the EU Israel Association view continues as if nothing had ever happened,
then probably the parties in the Association doing, which is ecumenical state,
is choosing the EU and the EU, and of course Israel are in breach of that agreement.
And it's worth just exploring the conditionality codes of Article 2
that underpins the Association doings, which says,
in relation to the parties, as well as all provisions of the agreement,
shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles,
which guide their internal and international policy
and constitute an essential element of this agreement.
And we've obtained an opinion from the Professor,
that extremist is one of our experts in this area,
and he advises that that clause Article 2
isn't just a human rights conditional clause.
It's also a clause that requires the parties to respect personal international law.
I take for you that the parties are to respect, at the very least,
the standards imposed by those proteins, customer satisfaction law, and the principles of the UN Charter.
And of course, soon it will mention the UN Charter,
when it leads to Article 2, Section 4 of the UN Charter,
which is the absolute prohibition on the imposition of prohibition by force.
So essentially, we say, I'll be honest with you, that's one of the reasons,
that there has to be a breach of that conditional clause,
and we've called on the institutions, the council, and the commission,
to do something about it.
They wrote back to the authors, and they wrote some of the terms to the court,
and the commission review, they basically said, this is nothing to do with you,
and we'll deal with this, and very much, and we'll deal with it through the principle process.
So that was good enough for us.
We are entitled, under Article 2.32 of the UN Charter,
to require the institutions to find their position with respect to Article 2 of the agreement,
and that work is kept under way, and we are determined, as we can,
to get what we see as a breach of Article 2 of the EU's decision to do so,
before the Court of First Incidence in the next future.
So to conclude, firstly, I think the obligations of other states
are absolutely key.
I really don't see a breaking point in sitting around at these meetings,
reminding ourselves over and over and over again,
but how desperate the situation is, in general.
The question is, what does it do with us?
Are we going to let every single member of the state of the EU,
get away with mowing up?
Is that good enough?
I'll say no, it's not, because, again,
the law that I'm referring to is really easy to understand.
You can give this talk to first or secondary law students,
and I'm sure they will understand it,
and I'm absolutely sure that the judges who dealt with it on that case,
and I thought the Court of First Incidence understood full well
that if we get into the door of the Court,
and have full hearing, we're going to run for it.
Because the obligation, for example,
not to render aid or assistance out there could not be.
And it's a very broad obligation,
and we have that from the Namibia judgment,
the inspector of South Africa,
and the UN General Assembly,
and the Security Council,
that sort of view at the time, with respect to Namibia,
but also with our own machines,
and other financial assistance,
was at the border.
Because it tended, after the story,
to entrench the determination of the South African state
to continue to bridge and make a sense of whether it's amusing,
and I think what the Court of Great Play had come along
between the Security Council's approach
to understanding the situation in South Africa
and the situation in Israel finding something
where it seems that it could be meant to do what it wants
in front of the world perhaps, in front of the world,
that it would get back in return,
is mean-mouthed condemnations.
Our own concept, which is a new one,
is very quick to pronounce the accent of over time,
but only starts with the rocket attacks
from Massa to the Israeli territory.
I think the figures set out very hotly in Jordan,
and I think the figures set out at the age of 13
is very, very important to me on the question of this matter.
So I say about that situation,
if it's not good enough, it doesn't mean it can fail,
but we're doing our thing to stop talking about this now,
and ask to do something about it.
And I'm allowed to see, a promise to them,
to see which jurisdiction would do for the union
a more amenable action to do here.
So some of the actions I'm talking about,
challenging, I'll say, all those lessons
within the European Union states.
Other challenges to the EU, Israel,
are social issues in the EU,
because if it's best for international law,
then it turns in any state's jurisdiction.
And what that means to me, that is something about this,
is that the UK has an unruly constitution,
and part of that unruly constitution
is that system of judicial review,
where a citizen of the UK has about two rackets,
can knock on the door of the court,
and say there is an issue of constitution importance,
the government has breached the law,
or this domestic law, or international law,
and you, the court, must, and will, hear that case.
And I wonder how many other European jurisdictions
have a similar system,
where on the facts, it's actually got a very active society,
it's actually got obvious examples of that state,
where the UK's resistance through perhaps
continues to take full arms,
but it's obviously to the Israel,
and so I think that what we're trying to do
in the UK could be repeated elsewhere.
I'm going to go down the path,
I've not sat here and tried to claim
that what we've done has been a runaway success,
because it hasn't.
We've tried to try something else once,
but at least we tried, at least we tried.
There's so much talk about the power of this situation,
but it's 100% not an action.
At least we tried.
That's next time, walking more successfully.
Thank you.
