Starmer’s stumbling on International Law
JVL Introduction
Experts in International Law have written to Keir Starmer – for the third time – copying in Emily Thornberry, who, as Shadow Attorney General should also know better. They argue that these two lawyers have failed to properly understand international law and that the response to those first two letters seem to prove that. Their focus was on collective punishment, forcible transfer and war crimes that form part of Israel’s disproportionate response to the atrocities carried out by Hamas on October 7th.
Still today (15.11.23) when Parliament will be debating the need for the UK government to back the increasing clamour for an immediate ceasefire, Starmer continues to call for something short of that and is whipping Labour MPs to vote for the wishy washy Labour amendment rather than the SNP’s call for that ceasefire. The lawyers urged Starmer “to ensure that all labour MPs are fully informed of the UK government’s legal obligation to call for a ceasefire in advance of any Parliamentary vote.” It seems that he has not done that.
LL
This is the text of the letter:
Sir Keir Starmer
Leader of the Labour Party
Cc: Emily Thornberry,
Shadow Attorney General for England and Wales
14 November 2023Dear Sir Keir Starmer,
We, the undersigned, wrote to you on 17 and 25 October, calling on you to clarify Labour’s position on collective punishment and forcible transfer and to oppose and condemn the commission of war crimes. Our letter was prompted by numerous statements from you and senior members of your shadow cabinet, which appeared to suggest that Labour either did not understand the international law governing Israel’s conduct or was unwilling, for political reasons, to publicly support fundamental principles of international law.
On 10 November, we received a response from the Labour Party. Various aspects of the response are of profound concern.
Legal inaccuracy
Most worrying in Labour’s response to our letters was the lack of understanding of international law. The response states that “collective punishment under international law is considered a war crime as per Article 33 of the Geneva Conventions (1949), to which Britain is a signatory”. This is inaccurate. The collective punishment of civilians is prohibited under article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (and under Article 75(2)d Additional Protocol I). States are unequivocally bound by the prohibition of collective punishment – any form of collective punishment amounts to an ‘internationally wrongful act’. And, as we pointed out in both letters, the imposition of collective punishment is likely to be considered a war crime under customary international law. Also, as it stands, it is the United Kingdom and not Britain that approves international treaties.
This may seem like a technicality but in the midst of an international crisis of this scale and given Israel’s statements, it is imperative that the Labour Party understands international law and understands the gravity of its position on collective punishment and on forcible transfer. As regards collective punishment, Israeli officials made their intentions clear. The Minister of Defence, Yoav Gallant, announcing the complete siege of Gaza, said “[t]here will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly“. A spokesperson for the Israeli military said that the emphasis was “on damage and not accuracy” and another official stated that “[c]reating a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza is a necessary means to achieve the goal“. The Minister for Energy stated that there would be no electricity, water or fuel “until the Israeli abductees are returned home“. You are, we are sure, well aware of the humanitarian crisis that Israel has since imposed through the siege of Gaza. The International Committee of the Red Cross, amongst others, have described both the complete siege of Gaza and the evacuation order as incompatible with international law.
It is worth noting that two joint letters from over 40 UK academics, with expertise in international law, merits a formal response from the Labour Party. Why then was the response not checked for legal accuracy and why were such fundamental legal issue given such cursory treatment?
The Role of the Opposition
The response to our letters also states that Labour’s position must be “in line with Britain’s global allies, namely the United States of America and the European Union”. In this regard, it behooves us to remind you that it is the job of His Majesty’s Opposition to hold the government of the United Kingdom to account, not to follow policy lines of foreign governments.
The legal obligations of the UK government should not be in doubt. Common articIe 1 of the four Geneva Conventions requires states parties “to respect and to ensure respect” for the conventions. We would also like to remind you that the United Kingdom has ratified the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. As confirmed by the International Council of Justice in 2020, all states have an obligation to prevent acts of genocide, irrespective of where they occur. In light of the mounting and compelling evidence of genocide, as affirmed by UN experts and scholars of genocide, the United Kingdom can adhere to its obligations under the Genocide Convention by calling for an immediate ceasefire, an end to the siege and an end to the forced displacement of Palestinians.
Labour’s commitment to international law
In the closing paragraph, your colleague thanks us for the “chance for the labour party to reiterate” its commitment to international law. However, this meagre and inaccurate response to our specific questions seems to reflect Labour’s lack of commitment to international law. The authority of international law, and international humanitarian law, in particular, is fundamentally undermined when its invocation amounts to no more than a political soundbite. If the labour party is serious about the potential of international law to settle international disputes and to reduce suffering in armed conflict, it must aspire to invoke its terms accurately and responsibly in order to encourage compliance.
We, therefore, ask what legal advice the Labour Party has sought on the international legal framework governing Israel’s conduct in the aftermath of the Hamas atrocities of 7 October which, in addition to prima facie violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza, including war crimes, has included apparent war crimes in the West Bank, where Hamas does not exercise any control.
We also write to urge you to ensure that all labour MPs are fully informed of the UK government’s legal obligation to call for a ceasefire in advance of any Parliamentary vote.
We look forward to your response to this letter,
Professor Michelle Farrell, Professor of lnternational Law, University of Liverpool
Professor Donatella Alessandrini, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Professor Yutaka Arai-Takahashi, Brussels School of lnt’I Studies (BSIS), University of Kent, Brussels
Dr. Michelle Burgis-Kasthala, Senior Lecturer in Public lntemational Law. University of Edinburgh
Dr. Luigi Daniele. Senior Lecturer in Law. Nottingham Law School, Nottingham Trent University
Dr. Alice Donald, Associate Professor, School of Law and Social Sciences, Middlesex University
Professor Mairead Enright, Professor of Feminist Legal Studies, Birmingham Law School
Professor Neve Gordon, Professor of International Law and Human Rights, Queen Mary University of London
Dr. Alan Greene, Reader in Constitutional law and Human Rights, Birmingham Law School
Professor Penny Green, Professor of Law and Globalisation, Queen Mary University of London
Dr. Kevin Hearty – Lecturer in Criminology, School of Social Sciences Education and Social Work, Queens University Belfast
Professor Christian Henderson, Professor of lnternational Law, University of Sussex
Dr. Erika Jimenez. School of Law, Queens University Belfast
Dr. Emily Jones, Newcastle Law School
Dr. Sara Kendall, Reader in International Law, Kent Law School
Dr. Tor Krever, Assistant Professor in International Law, University of Cambridge
Dr. Daniella Lock, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Oxford.
Professor Louise Mallinder, Professor of Law, Queen’s University Belfast
Professor Triestino Marinello, School of Law, Liverpool John Moores University
Professor Alison MacKenzie, School of Social Sciences Education and Social Work, Queen’s University Belfast
Professor Natasa Mavronicola, Professor of Human Rights Law, Birmingham Law School
Dr. Lydia Morgan, Associate Professor, Birmingham Law School
Dr. Julie McCandless, Senior Lecturer, Kent Law School
Starmer is easily bribed, as is proven by the money he receives from zionists, the private healthcare sector, and who knows who else…clearly he has has no morals, no sincerity, no honesty, no humanity. I hope he either resigns, or is sacked, and is booted out of the labour party, along with Streeting, Cooper, and others.
NO EXCUSES
If Israel were my boyfriend
I’d have finished with him. Said
Enough of what you’re doing
I’m no longer going to sleep with you
On your bike, you nasty bastard
A very simple question
Have any of the Labour Friends
Of Israel said something similar?
It is disgraceful that only 125 UK MPs voted for a ceasefire.
Please keep up the good work. You speak and act for so many of us. Thank you again.
Power at any cost is the norm from our glorious illustrious leader doubt you will get a reply his Stalinist tendencies means no other views allowed but his
If only we had a leader of the LP with some grounding in International Law. Or even with a principle or two. The country is in a desperate state, on a par with when the Rev Tony strutted the Middle East. Then, grotesquely, awarded the ME Peace Envoy gig: hell’s teeth!
What a huge difference Starmer could make to this whole mess, if only he would LISTEN! But his selective deafness is extreme, his sense of his own rectitude unassailable.
He has that in common with so many supporters of Israel around the world, who refuse to look the truth in the eye, because so deeply have they wedded themselves to the Zionist’s lies they no longer have the power to acknowledge even the possibility that not everything is as it seems to teir limited vision.
However, the latest stand taken against Starmer by so many in the PLP holds out hope that his power within the party is not as monolithic as it has seemed so far.
Maybe sense will prevail after all, and Starmer will find that he does have competition. His personal position is morally untenable; how long before somebody tests the sustainability of his personal authority?
For many years I have supported one democratic state from the river to the sea. I am no longer sure I would give Israelis this confidence. All that is relevant now is to demand CEASEFIRE NOW
As a leading Human rights lawyer what defence would he have
Every MP that voted against a cease fire, should be prosecuted and barred from holding public office ever again.