Print Friendly, PDF & Email
GA Plenary Meeting: Continuation of the General Debate of the 66th General Assembly Session President of Iran

GA Plenary Meeting: Continuation of the General Debate of the 66th General Assembly Session
President of Iran

Lawfare’s Central Issues:

  • Where does the power of a state end and the power of an international court or tribunal begin?
  • What consists of incitement to immediate violence and what is legitimate criticism of religion?
  • Should “hate speech” be outlawed?
  • When an international tribunal displays political or other bias in its deliberations, is the state’s sovereign control abrogated?
  • Does the universal jurisdiction trend go against our national security interests?
  • If universal jurisdiction is a concept that should be retained, what limits should be applied?
  • From where do courts in Spain and the Netherlands derive the authority to unilaterally grant themselves universal jurisdiction and the power to adjudicate over other nation-states?
  • To what extent must classified material be released to protect the rights of terrorists that allege torture?
  • Where should terrorists and unlawful combatants be tried and imprisoned and under what law?
  • Must the “underwear bomber” be read his Miranda rights?
  • What is the source of the bias evident in many human rights reports and in certain tribunals?

F151021FFF91-724x400Case Examples of Lawfare:

  • Al Qaeda manuals that instruct captured militants to file false claims of torture in order to reposition themselves as victims in the eyes of the law and media (see, e.g., p. 16).
  • Attempts by terrorist entities such as Hamas to impede the free movement of democratic state officials and to achieve legitimacy by hiring lawyers and instituting “human rights” litigation abroad.
  • Efforts at the United Nations to exclude attacks on civilians from any international definition of the crime of terrorism, so long as the civilians are citizens of what is termed an “occupying power.”
  • Predatory defamation and “hate speech” lawsuits filed against anyone who speaks publicly about radical Islam, terrorism and its sources of financing.
  • Unilateral determinations of local/national courts to exert universal jurisdiction over heads of states and to charge “war crimes,” including efforts to charge Israeli and US government officials with war crimes in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Spain.
  • The International Court of Justice’s partisan advisory ruling on the legality of Israel’s security barrier, which pointedly ignored the fact that the barrier contributed to a sharp decline in terrorism attacks and failed to address the question of whether the court had jurisdiction to consider the issue in the first place.
  • The Goldstone Report and similar flawed and politicized documents masquerading as legitimate legal analysis and created solely to give legal patina to military and political goals.
  • The lack of legal accountability demanded of theocratic states that recruit their own children as suicide bombers and child soldiers.
  • The resurgence of international and national blasphemy laws (at the United Nations and in Europe).