Podcast Summary
UN vote highlights divide between Israel, US, and international community: The UN's bias and broken promises towards Palestinians fuel their frustration, and international law's inconsistent application based on power dynamics hinders accountability and prevention of atrocities
The UN General Assembly's overwhelming vote to grant Palestinians full member status highlights the growing divide between Israel, the US, and the international community. This event underscores long-standing feelings of bias and broken promises from the UN and international law in the eyes of Palestinians. Aza Bali, a Yale Law School professor, discussed the complex nature of international law, emphasizing that it operates differently for various countries depending on their power and influence. She also pointed out that smaller or less powerful actors can seek protection from great power patrons, hindering the international community's ability to enforce accountability and prevent atrocities.
International law influenced by powers that be: International law can be defied or applied selectively when powerful states lack domestic audience cost or historical involvement, prioritizing peace over justice since WWII.
International law, like other forms of law, is heavily influenced by the powers that be. In cases where great powers are not interested or willing to engage institutional accountability mechanisms due to a lack of domestic audience cost or historical involvement, international law can be defied or applied in ways that allow conflicts to continue. This was evident in the cases of Eritrea and Ethiopia, the Great Lakes region in Africa, and even during the unipolar moment of the 1990s when the United States, as the most powerful state, hesitated to intervene in crises in Yugoslavia and Rwanda despite clear evidence of crimes against humanity. Balancing the belief in the law as written with the reality of power politics can be a frustrating endeavor for international lawyers, but the international legal order established after World War II prioritized peace over justice, giving asymmetric power to the victors and most powerful states.
UN's institutional design prioritizes peace over justice: The UN's creation led to compromises that prioritized peace over justice, as seen in the creation of Israel and international law's recognition of state sovereignty
The UN's institutional design, which recognizes and accommodates the asymmetrical power dynamics among nations, is a deliberate decision to prioritize the prevention of a third world war over justice. This was evident in the creation of the State of Israel and the development of international law. After World War I, the League of Nations oversaw the mandates of former Ottoman territories, including Palestine, which was given to Britain to facilitate self-determination for Jews and Arabs. However, this led to intercommunal clashes, and after World War II, the UN took over the mandate and had to make a judgment on the competing ambitions for a homeland. The UN's decision to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem as a corpus separatum, was a compromise that recognized the interests of the powerful nations and prevented a potential global conflict. International law, which recognizes the sovereign equality of all states, provides a normative language for smaller states to protect their interests and limit the exercise of power by larger states. This system, despite its limitations, is crucial for maintaining peace and stability in the international system.
The UN's role in creating Israel: Peaceful partition or limited enforcement?: The UN's role in Israel's creation was complex, with attempts at peaceful partition leading to war and limited enforcement of decisions.
The creation of the State of Israel in 1949 was the result of a complex interplay between international law, diplomacy, and military conflict. The United Nations attempted to peacefully resolve the international dispute between Jews and Arabs in Palestine by partitioning the land, but the partition plan was met with rejection by the Arab community, leading to war. The outcome of the war resulted in a larger proportion of the territory under Jewish control than the UN-assigned partition, leaving 22% under Arab control. Israel was admitted to the UN, but the UN's role in enforcing its own partition plan was limited. However, it's important to note that there are competing narratives surrounding the foundation of Israel. One perspective views the UN as a key player, while another sees the conflict as primarily driven by military action. The latter perspective overlooks the role of international law in shaping the context for the conflict. The UN, as a system of rules, has historically facilitated Western control over colonized territories, including Palestine. The ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, and the UN's role in it, continues to be a contentious issue, with Israelis feeling biased against them in UN decisions. The UN's inability to effectively enforce its own decisions in this context highlights the limitations of international law in resolving complex, long-standing conflicts.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an unfinished business of decolonization: Decolonization remains a live issue for many countries, particularly regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The inability of Palestinians to exercise self-determination continues to be a source of frustration and concern, reflected in ongoing UN debates and votes on Palestinian statehood.
While the United States and other Western powers may view decolonization as a thing of the past, for many countries, particularly those in the Global South, the issue remains a live one, especially when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel's emergence as a state came after the establishment of new international laws and norms, but the fact that Palestinians have not been able to exercise their right to self-determination continues to be a source of frustration and concern. The ongoing debate and voting on UN resolutions regarding Palestinian statehood reflects this ongoing grievance and the continued influence of colonial history on international relations. Israelis argue that their country should be treated like any other, but the unique circumstances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict keep it in the spotlight. Ultimately, the issue is not just about Israel, but about the unfinished business of decolonization and the ongoing impact of colonialism on international relations.
Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Complex self-determination vs. unequal power dynamics: External solutions favoring Israel perpetuate the conflict. Hamas's civilian targeting is unlawful, but Israel's disproportionate response raises concerns.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complex issue rooted in self-determination and unequal power dynamics. External attempts to impose solutions have favored Israel, leading to an ongoing conflict. Regarding the October 7th attacks, Hamas violated international laws of war by targeting civilians and taking hostages. Israel had options for response, but its objective to destroy Hamas as a fighting force raises concerns about disproportionate use of force, which is impermissible under international law. The conflict requires a balanced approach that respects the rights and safety of both populations.
Israel's Interpretation of International Humanitarian Law in Gaza: Critics argue Israel's broad interpretation of military necessity in Gaza undermines humanitarian law, potentially causing disproportionate harm to civilians.
The interpretation of international humanitarian law by Israel in the context of its military actions in Gaza raises complex questions about the balance between military necessity and the principles of proportionality and distinction. Critics argue that Israel's reinterpretation of military necessity with regard to its overall strategic objectives, rather than the specific military advantage in a given moment, undermines the spirit and law of international humanitarian law and risks causing disproportionate harm to civilians. The complication arises when Israel is not always clear about what it means to eliminate or exterminate, particularly in the context of Gaza's small territory and dense civilian population. The question of whether international law and practice diverge in this context is open-ended, as it depends on how one views the situation and the comparability of Hamas to other armed actors. The context of international law and typical state responses to armed attacks also adds to the complexity of the issue.
Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas conflicts: Unclear war goals and ineffective enforcement of international law: Despite international rejection, Russia and Israel maintain their UN Security Council status, highlighting the ambiguity around war goals and the ineffectiveness of enforcing international law in conflicts involving these countries.
The international system's inability to effectively enforce international law was highlighted during the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as Russia's invasion was rejected under international law but the country still maintains its standing in the UN Security Council. The same ambiguity around goals applies to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, where the distinction between targeting the armed actors, governing infrastructure, and social movement is not always clear. The most egregious violation of the laws of war during Israel's invasion of Gaza is the blocking of humanitarian aid, which has led to a potential crime of starvation. The international community must address these violations and work towards clearer definitions of war goals and more effective enforcement of international law.
Using civilians as shields doesn't excuse military from law: Military must take precautions to minimize harm to civilians near objectives, including evacuations, aid access, and narrow targeting. Deliberate use of civilians as human shields is illegal.
The use of civilian areas as shields by armed groups does not absolve military forces from adhering to international humanitarian law. The deliberate targeting of civilians or indiscriminate bombardment of civilian areas is a war crime. However, when civilians are present near military objectives, international law requires military forces to take precautions to minimize harm to civilians. This includes evacuating civilians, facilitating access to medical supplies and humanitarian assistance, and narrowly targeting attacks to specific locations. The use of human shields, defined as the deliberate placement of civilians near military objectives during a conflict, is a violation of international law and requires specific measures to protect civilians. The discussion also highlighted the complexities of establishing intent in cases of war crimes and the need for international scrutiny and accountability.
International law's role in Israel-Palestine conflict and US approach: The US, as a global power, should use international law carefully to prevent erosion and maintain peace, rather than setting a dangerous precedent for disregard.
International law, while not able to enforce its rules in real-time during conflicts like the one in Israel and Palestine, still holds significance as it can create moral pressure and provide a language for diplomacy. The Biden administration, despite its limitations, has used international law to express concerns and justify actions against Israel's disregard for the rules. However, this approach could lead to a dangerous precedent for other countries to disregard international law when it suits them, potentially leading to a fragmented and chaotic international system. The US, as a leading global power, must be more cautious in its use of military force and respect international law to prevent the erosion of the existing legal infrastructure and the risk of future conflicts.
US relationship with international law and UN Security Council questioned: Non-binding UN resolutions can shape global agendas and public opinion, potentially leading to more binding measures in the future, despite their non-binding nature.
The United States' relationship with international law and the UN Security Council was put into question during a discussion about a non-binding resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages in the context of ongoing negotiations between various parties. This situation echoes historical precedents, such as the United States' treatment of UN Security Council resolutions regarding apartheid in South Africa. Despite the non-binding nature of these resolutions, they can shape global agendas and public opinion, potentially leading to more binding measures in the future. The discussion also touched upon the potential shift in focus from specific rules of international humanitarian law to broader questions about the political and legal future of territories with complex populations and governance structures. For those interested in learning more about the history and evolution of international law, particularly in the context of colonialism and decolonization, I would recommend the books "Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law" by Anthony Anghie, "Justice for Some, Law and the Question of Palestine" by Noora El-Hassan, and "Aidam Getachew's Choose World Making After Empire."
Understanding the complex relationship Americans have with their constitution: Aziz Rana's book 'The Constitutional Vine' explores the challenges of holding our government accountable and translating public preferences into policy changes, with renewed urgency in light of ongoing issues like the conflict in Gaza and consistent public support for a ceasefire.
Learning from this episode of The Ezra Klein Show is the complex relationship Americans have with their constitution, as discussed in Aziz Rana's recent book "The Constitutional Vine: How Americans Came to Idolize a Document that Fails Them." Rana's work sheds light on the challenges of holding our government accountable and translating public preferences into policy changes, which has renewed urgency in light of ongoing issues like the conflict in Gaza and consistent public support for a ceasefire. This episode was produced by Andy Galvin, fact-checked by Michelle Harris, engineered by Jeff Geld and Amin Sahota, edited by Claire Gordon, and featured music by Isaac Jones. The show's production team includes Andy Galvin, Roland Hu, Elias Iskweth, and Kristen Lynn. Special thanks to Carol Subaro.