Canada and ICJ

[bradco]

Are you saying that a democratically elected leader is not capable of committing crimes against humanity?

What is a "crime against humanity". This is a term which has been flung about quite a lot of late, in particular with regard to Israel's action in Lebanon. And I have to say that if that is considered a "Crime against humanity" then the term has been so bastardized that it can no longer be used with any practicality to punish anyone for anything.

So yes, if what Israel did constituted, in your eyes, a "Crime against Humanity" then democratic leaders can be "guilty" of it, but I would not want them prosecuted under that interpretation.

There is a big difference to what "crimes against humanity" means when it is "bastardized" by politicians/media/NGO's and everyone else and what the legal definition is (as defined by treaties, customary international law maybe it gets a little murkier)

as far as the ICC is concerned a crime against humanity would be:

means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack[6]:

(a) Murder;

( Extermination;

© Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

In the case of Isreal they would be potentially guilty of such crimes if their actions in Lebanon were considered illegal. Although a right of self-defence is allowed (and defined differently in international law than domestic law, that is it is a little more loose in int'l law) it is generally accepted that it must meet the Caroline requirements of necessity and proportionallity (which actually originate in a dispute involving the US which helps define this customary law). I would argue that Isreal's response was absolutly necessary but proportional might be a different story.

[jbg]

I would argue that Isreal's response was absolutly necessary but proportional might be a different story.

Not proportional? How about the fact that Hezbollah's attacks are almost entirely aimed at non-military targets? How about the fact that Hezbollah is armed by UN members, as an end-run around the UN Charter?

Israel tries to aim for Hezbollah, and they hide behind the skirts of civilians, in order to create a media feeding frenzy when Israel deigns to retaliate.