Huffington Post March 21, 2011
The US veto of a mildly worded UN Security Council resolution supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and reiterating the illegality of Israeli settlements in occupied territories leaves little doubt that… Obama shares his predecessor’s contempt for international law. All fourteen of the other members of the Security Council voted for the resolution — which was cosponsored by a nearly unprecedented majority of UN members…
Category: International Law
The Gaza War, Congress and International Humanitarian Law
Middle East Policy Council April 16, 2010; also Institute for Palestine Studies, ResearchGate, Typeset.io & Wiley
The large-scale killing of civilians during Israel’s three-week assault on the Gaza Strip in 2008-09 received widespread condemnation from human-rights advocates and international legal scholars the world over. In both Europe and North America, public reaction to the grossly disproportionate Israeli response to Hamas rocket attacks was the most negative ever expressed against an Israeli military action. In Israel itself, soldiers who had witnesses some of the atrocities joined Israeli peace activists in exposing war crimes committed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). However, the U.S. Congress, under the leadership of the Democratic Party, overwhelmingly defended the Israeli offensive, even to the point of attacking leading defenders of international humanitarian law. [source]
Bipartisan Attack on International Humanitarian Law
Foreign Policy In Focus/Institute for Policy Studies,
November 4, 2009 by Stephen Zunes; also at Alternet
In a stunning blow against international law and human rights, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a resolution Tuesday attacking the report of the UN Human Rights Council’s fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict. The report was authored by the well-respected South African jurist Richard Goldstone and three other noted authorities on international humanitarian law, who had been widely praised for taking leadership in previous investigations of war crimes in Rwanda, Darfur, the former Yugoslavia, and elsewhere. Since this report documented apparent war crimes by a key U.S. ally, however, Congress has taken the unprecedented action of passing a resolution condemning it… [source]
Hillary Clinton’s Disdain for International Law — PART TWO
Huffington Post, Jan. 5 2009, by Stephen Zunes [source]
The appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is nothing less than a betrayal of the anti-war constituency responsible for Barack Obama winning the Democratic Party nomination and his subsequent election as U.S. president. The quintessential Democratic hawk, Senator Clinton has proven to be one of the leading militarists on Capitol Hill and her appointment as the country’s chief foreign policy representative serves notice to the international community that the change they had hoped for will not be forthcoming.
Hillary Clinton’s Disdain for International Law — PART ONE
Alternet December 1, 2008, by Stephen Zunes [source]
For those hoping for a dramatic change in U.S. foreign policy under an Obama administration — particularly regarding human rights, international law, and respect for international institutions — the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is a bitter disappointment. Indeed, Senator Clinton has more often than not sided with the Bush administration against fellow Democrats on key issues regarding America’s international legal obligations, particularly international humanitarian law.
Western Sahara: Self-Determination and International Law
Middle East Institute, April 2, 2008 by Stephen Zunes [source]
The failure of the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front to agree on the modalities of the long-planned United Nations-sponsored referendum on the fate of Western Sahara, combined with a growing nonviolent resistance campaign within the territory against Morocco’s 31-year occupation, has led Morocco to propose granting the former Spanish colony special autonomous status within the kingdom. The plan has received the enthusiastic support of the American and French governments…
Still No Peace
Foreign Policy In Focus, January 16, 2008 [source]
By John Feffer and and Stephen Zunes
President George W. Bush has been using somewhat stronger language than he has uttered previously about the Israeli-Palestinian situation and has made some optimistic predictions of a peace agreement within a year. Nevertheless, there is little reason to hope that the president is any more serious about or is any more likely to be successful in bringing about a negotiated settlement to the conflict.
Hillary Clinton on International Law
Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS December 10, 2007:
By John Feffer, Stephen Zunes [source]
Perhaps the most terrible legacy of the administration of President George W. Bush has been its utter disregard for such basic international legal norms as the ban against aggressive war, respect for the UN Charter, and acceptance of international judicial review. Furthermore, under Bush’s leadership, the United States has cultivated a disrespect for basic human rights, a disdain for reputable international human rights monitoring groups, and a lack of concern for international humanitarian law. Ironically, the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president shares much of President Bush’s dangerous attitudes toward international law and human rights.
Broken Peace Process
Foreign Policy In Focus, November 26, 2007, By Stephen Zunes [source]
There’s little reason to hope for a breakthrough at the Middle East peace summit in Annapolis, unless there is a fundamental shift in U.S. policy in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And there’s little evidence to suggest such a change is forthcoming.
Lecture: Western Sahara and International Law (video)
Launch of a new book including Stephen Zunes:
International Law and the Question of Western Sahara
(editors: Karin Arts, Pedro Pinto Leite). Watch Parts 1 and 2 below:
Part 2:
Democracy and Double Standards: The Palestinian “Exception”
Foreign Policy In Focus, December 22, 2005
By John Gershman, Stephen Zunes [source]
At a time of year when Jews and Christians are celebrating the spirit of justice and peace inspired by events in the Holy Land many centuries ago, Congress has been working to ensure that the Holy Land of today experiences neither. Just prior to the Christmas recess, a bipartisan resolution in the House of Representatives and a letter signed by 73 of 100 Senators put Congress on record that the U.S. government, despite rhetoric to the contrary, does not take Middle Eastern democracy too seriously…
Lecture video: Occupation and the Attack on International Law
Talk by Prof. Stephen Zunes on “Occupation and the Attack on International Law” given December 9, 2005, in Seattle [57 mins.]
International Law, The U.N., and MIddle Eastern Conflicts
Professor Stephen Zunes prepared this paper to present at the 2003 convention of the State Bar Association of Arizona, September 9, 2004. However, two weeks before the event, SBA president Ernest Calderon banned the presentation following complaints that Zunes, who had been invited to prepare it six months earlier– was “anti-Israel” and “anti-American.” At no point was Zunes given an opportunity to defend himself and challenge these charges… Access the full paper [tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1040265042000278513] or see the summary image below.
Attacks Against World Court by Bush, Kerry and Congress Reveal Growing Bipartisan Hostility to International Law
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, August 17, 2004
[source is no longer available]
On July 9, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) determined that the Israeli government’s construction of a separation wall running through the occupied Palestinian West Bank was illegal. Among other things, the ICJ noted that the construction of the first 125 miles of the proposed 450-mile barrier “has involved the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources, the disruption of the lives of the thousands of protected civilians and the de facto annexation of large areas of territory.” The court called on Israel to cease construction of the wall, to dismantle what has already been built in areas beyond Israel’s internationally recognized border, and to compensate Palestinians who have suffered losses as a result of the wall’s construction. The vote was 14-1, a not-unexpected margin…
Bush Endorsement of Sharon Proposal Undermines Peace and International Law
Foreign Policy In Focus, April 27, 2004
by Stephen Zunes [source is no longer available]
President George W. Bush’s unconditional endorsement of right-wing Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan constitutes a shocking reversal of longstanding U.S. Middle East policy and one of the most flagrant challenges to international law and the integrity of the United Nations system ever made by a U.S. president. By giving unprecedented backing for Israeli plans to annex large swaths of occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank in order to incorporate illegal Jewish settlements, President Bush has effectively renounced UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which call on Israel — in return for security guarantees from its Arab neighbors — to withdraw from Palestinian territories seized in the June 1967 war…
The United States and Bolivia: The Taming of a Revolution, 1952-1957
The United States and Bolivia: The Taming of a Revolution, 1952-1957. Latin American Perspectives Vol. 28 No. 5 (September 1, 2001): 33-49. Also at SAGE Journals, JSTOR, ResearchGate.net, University of Saskatchewan, and FES.DE/bibliothek
UN Betrayal of Western Sahara
Foreign Policy In Focus, June 1, by Stephen Zunes [Source & Global Policy Forum]
When a country violates fundamental principles of international law and when the UN Security Council demands that it cease its illegal behavior, one might expect that the world body would impose sanctions or other measures to foster compliance. This has been the case with Iraq, Libya, and other international outlaws in recent years. One would not expect for the United Nations to respond to such violations by passing a series of new and weaker resolutions that essentially allow for the transgressions to stand…