|
The Scrap of Paper - ICC & ECHR in Context |
![]() |
In August 1914 the German Empire invaded Belgium. This was in spite of the what was known as the 'Second Treaty of London' in 1867. It was reference to the 1839 treaty and guaranteed the status of Belgium. According to Wikipedia, the treaty was a fundamental "lawmaking" treaty that became a cornerstone of European international law and was especially important in the Causes of World War I. On 31 July 1914, the mobilisation of the Belgian Army was ordered and the Belgian king publicly called Europe's attention to the fact that Germany, Great Britain and France were legally bound by this treaty to defend the neutrality of his country. Great Britain issued an ultimatum to Germany based on the treaty, after it was unanswered Britain declared war on the 4th of August. Informed by the British Ambassador that Britain would go to war with Germany over violation of Belgian neutrality, German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg exclaimed that he could not believe that Britain and Germany would be going to war over a mere scrap of paper. But go to war we did. What has this to do with the ICC (international Criminal Court) and the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) in 2024? Many will not realise the implications. On Saturday the 27th of September 2014 I was on a photo assignment in an open-air theatre in Northern Bavaria. There, after the shoot, I met a just retired professor from the University of Bayreuth. As is often the case, being a foreigner and in particular a Brit, he asked me like many before him questions. "Who started the second world war?" he questioned me. "I think we all know the answer to that" was my reply. Then I was astonished: "You Brits started it by following up on the stupid treaty you had with Poland". My response, very irritated, "I believe it is British nature to adhere to treaties and agreements we have signed...." ICC and ECHR What has this story to do with the ICC and ECHR? The UK is a signatory to both of these international treaties or conventions. Just at the moment the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant. The United States is not a state party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which founded the International Criminal Court in 2002. As of February 2024, 124 states were members of the Court. Other states that have not become parties to the Rome Statute include India, Indonesia, and China. The White House said in any case the US rejected the ICC decision. However, several European countries have said they respect the decisions of the court. It will not the subject of this article to attempt to decide whether the accusations against these two individuals are valid. What is important though, is that the signed agreement with the ICC is not just a "mere scrap of paper". In some ways we have a similar situation concerning the ECHR. Many people are unhappy that rulings of the ECHR have meant that in the past nd on several occasions the UK could not deport criminals and illegal immigrants on supposed reasons of their human rights being violated. Sir Kier Starmer, previously a QC and now our prime minister who has vowed to stop mass immigration by small boats laden with thousands of illegal immigrants, has proven in the past to have been active defending individuals and ensuring that they were not deported. At least, at the moment, it seems that few are raising their voices and demanding that the UK merely ignores any ECHR rulings. So what is the honourable solution if you don't want to ignore a treaty? You cease to be a signatory. This is very contentious and has even split political party lines. But there can be no question: it would be the honourable, British, way of solving the problem. If on the other hand we stay with the ECHR we should undoubtadly honour its decisions. There is however a third solution and that would be to amend the treaty to exclude foreigners having the right to appeal legal decisions outside of their own country. This is reasonable. Why for example should a Brit be able to call upon the ECHR because he has a disagreement with for example France or Italy. It doesn't make sense and was probably not the intention of Churchill et. al. when they first initiated the creation of the convention. The intention was to protect citizens from the misdoings of dictatorships and rogue governments the way the German NSDAP had brutally supressed their own pople. |
London: 27. November 2024: -pw- |
Source: WessexTimes |
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect WessexTimes editorial stance. |
|