In the wake of the abortive efforts to have an arrest warrant issued for Israeli opposition leader Livni in the UK under universal jurisdiction laws the diplomatic exchanges continue and the UK seems poised to actually modify their legislation.
The question of the UK's application of universal jurisdiction had apparently long been on the agenda in talks between Israeli and UK officials. That the issue had not been rectified and had boiled over into an effort to have Livni arrested has opened a painful sore between the two countries and prompted harsh rebukes from Israel and embarrassed apologies from the UK.
Proposed changes to the UK's universal jurisdiction laws have already begun, with Whitehall--the UK foreign ministry--already examining a few options. As it stands, an arrest warrant can be issued by a judge in the UK based on a petition to the court. Any actual trial, however, would need to be approved by the UK Attorney General. One proposed change would be to require the Attorney General to approve even the arrest warrant.
Palestinian groups have responded forcefully to this, suggesting that the Goldstone report provided sufficient grounds to have Livni arrested and to stand trial and that it was inappropriate to have the political echelons apologize for a legally justified act by the courts. These critics are not entirely wrong and do have a valid point about political involvement in the judiciary. The courts must operate free of political influence and it is troubling to think that the political echelons may have a say in who the court tries or ignores. It is possible to conceive of a situation where someone accused of the most heinous crimes is allowed to travel the world with impunity because their arrest would have important political or economic (trade) impacts on the state that attempted to arrest them. It's true the Attorney General in the UK is an unelected official, but the office is appointed by the Prime Minister, so there is a level of political influence.
Cases of universal jurisdiction, however, are almost by definition not purely legal. These cases incorporate instances of international relations as one country will be judging a foreigner whose crime is not linked to the country in which they are being judged. There will likely be several parties with interests in a given case and it is easy to imagine that such cases would become highly politicized. Indeed, it is quite cynical of Palestinian groups to criticize British politicians for political involvement in the Livni episode when the attempt to have Livni arrested is itself a political, and not purely legal, move. Indeed, one lawyer who commented publicly on the story, Daniel Machover, is the founder of a group called "Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights." This group's stated mission is to use legal means to advance Palestinian self-determination, a decided political aim. (Note: To be clear, everyone, should support Palestinian Human rights and the human rights of all people. Full stop. This group defends these rights but seems to have a clear political goal.)
Turning this decision making about applying universal jurisdiction to the Attorney General seems like nothing more than a fig-leaf for political influence in the justice system. Such influence is widely seen as inappropriate in western legal systems. Perhaps the UK should do away with this illusion and clearly say what they want: a system of universal jurisdiction that can be applied selectively, sparing allied and targeting foes. Essentially, lawfare waged by the state. The reason they would never say such a thing is because it undermines the basis of legislative and executive non-intervention in the judicial branch.
Still though, it is extremely difficult to craft a system of universal jurisdiction, which is political by definition, that could not be used by interested political groups to harass opponents while at the same time, remaining judicially independent. This is a difficult legislative problem but one that could probably be best resolved by tying universal jurisdiction to existing rules in international law, for example, the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court. Such a solution would exempt nationals whose countries have not ratified the Rome statute and would only be triggered if the conditions of the Rome statute were met.
Turkey, Russia, and the US in Syria
1 year ago