Tag Archives: International law

Greenland and the principle of ‘Self-Determination’

Posted on by
Reply

Just over a hundred years ago, at the Paris Peace Talks that produced the Treaty of Versailles at the end of the Great War, American President Woodrow Wilson raised a very important principle regarding national boundaries: ‘self-determination‘.  It was something that had already been discussed for decades and he had raised in an address to Congress on 11th February 1918.

Wilson said:

“National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. ‘Self determination’ is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of actions which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril.”

It essentially means the people in a territory should be entitled to determine how they are governed.  After the Second World War, this principle was strengthened by its inclusion in the charter of the United Nations and its recognition as an international legal right.

So, for example, if the people of Bermuda, Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands say they want to be British, then British they should be.  And if those of India, Canada and Australia (and some 60 or so other nations) say they want independence, then independence they should get.

So somebody saying in 2026 that they think they should be allowed to buy or simply take another country by force, despite the opinion of the people living there, they are at risk of committing an international crime against the human rights of those people.

Currently, about 85% of Greenlanders oppose being taken over by the USA.  They do not want to be governed by the USA.  So they should not be.

Meanwhile, only 8% of Americans support using military force to take Greenland.  So it is either an individual’s personal desire, government policy or commercial interests that are pushing for the colonisation of Greenland.  It is not even a democratic desire of the US citizens.

It is also becoming clear why Donald Trump is opposed to the United Nations and the International Court of Justice (the World Court) – they hinder his ambitions.  One can but hope President Wilson was right, and he ignores them “at his peril”.

ICC, ICJ and World Court confusion

Posted on by
Reply

I have seen comments saying Vladimir Putin should be taken to the World Court.  Individuals are not taken there, it is not that sort of court.  Instead it should be to the International Criminal Court (ICC). ‘World Court’ is the common name for the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The International Court of Justice is a United Nations organisation. It exists to settle questions of international law and give legal opinion on disputes between nations. It has said what Russia is doing in Ukraine is wrong. It is a panel of judges who give an opinion: any action has to be taken by nation states.

The International Criminal Court  is a very different body. Although it is an intergovernmental organisation, it is not part of the United Nations. It exists to prosecute individuals for matters such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It can issue arrest warrants, try people and has a detention centre.

It issued an arrest warrant for Putin on 17th March 2023 for the situation in Ukraine.

Confusingly, both are based in The Hague, Netherlands.

Press release about Putin’s arrest warrant.

 

ICJ’s judgement on Israel

Posted on by
Reply

The International Court of Justice is an important part of the United Nations.  It adjudicates disputes between nations and provides legal advice on international law.  Its rulings and opinions on a case are binding on the parties involved.

On 26th January 2024 the ICJ ruled that Israel must prevent genocidal acts in Gaza.

On social media, many people are saying this is meaningless as the ICJ has no teeth.

I think it does have some effect.

In the workplace, when someone bullies another, one can either call it out or let it go. When someone objects to poor behaviour, we can support them or just say “toughen up” or “that’s just they way they are”.

Another outcome is to stand up and say “This is wrong. Do not behave that way.” That gives others the confidence to also stand up and say “We agree, that is wrong.”

That makes most other people think twice before also bulling people. They don’t want to be called out and embarrassed. We have said bullying is no longer normal behaviour.

The same thing really does apply on the world stage. When the ICJ says “This is wrong”, it might have little effect on Israel, but it does send out a message to diplomats, politicians and the media round the world that it is not acceptable. They can’t say “But Israel did it, so we can too”. People feel empowered to say to their leaders “I don’t think we should do that”.

Some see it as ironic that it is South Africa calling it out, given their history. It is not ironic, it was inevitable. They have been through the pain of apartheid, terrorism, revolution but then peace and reconciliation process. South Africa today is not the South Africa of 50 years ago. Change can be radical, and a bad example can become an exemplar.

It is one of the ways the world is very slowly becoming more humane.