Home
Previous letters
Subscribe
Useful links
About me
Contact me
|
WORLD CITIZEN LETTER: 526
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
WCL 526 August 2006
Who is to pay?
The estimate for the summer 2006 madness in Lebanon has been put at $7 billion and in Israel at a mere $1.4 billion. These are not precise figures but they need investigating. Not so much for their amounts as to question - who is to pay? In Lebanon the immediate answer suggested is that Hizbollah, taking advantage of their huge propaganda success, are offering to pay for losses incurred from Israeli attacks. That will bolster the claims of the organisation to be a social service and not simply a resistance movement. It will doutbtless enhance the already high reputation of the "terrorist" group, now seen as the sole successful military opposition to the Israeli army in 50 years.
But the larger question remains. An illegal attack by Israel caused huge destruction and billions of dollars-worth of damage. Who is to pay for it? One simple answer might be that as the United States and Britain were complicit in supplying Israel with weapons for the invasion of Lebanon, those two states should supply a large part of the costs of reconstruction and that Israel should pay the rest. Morally speaking, it seems that Israel, the U.S. and Britain ought to accept responsibility and pay compensation for the loss of lives.
But what is the legal position? If an American businessman had a legitimate stake in a Lebanese company which has been demolished with corresponding financial loss as a result of an illegal Israeli action, with American connivance and direct aid, can the trader claim damages against his own government in a U.S. court? And what if a British merchant is similarly harmed, has he a valid claim against HMG? Presumably each case is different, but there must be guide-lines that will give clues to what is likely to happen.
Leaving aside for the present the domestic jurisdiction, what is the provision for other states to bring actions in the World Court at The Hague? The International Court of Justice is meant to settle conflicts between states but it is usual for governments to take up important cases involving their own citizens when financial issues are paramount in their minds.
Following wars, there is always a trail of cases relating to the various losses sustained during the conflicts. Historically, international commercial law has generally been more effective and its developments owed more to the needs of international trade than to peace-makers. If it can be elevated to the status of world law, with full guarantees that judgments will be enforced by law and not solely by armed force, there will be great gains for the peace-makers. If war-making can be made financially ruinous for the supporters and suppliers of weapons as well as to the victims of military action, then a big step towards a peaceful world can be made.
It is the potential for individuals financially damaged by illegal military action that can be vitally important, just as civil society is showing itself to be central in pushing forward the deterrence of war preparations. Somehow we have to harness the immense power of legal and property rights of victims who are themselves able to lodge claim against their own governments, in order to deter those governments from supporting illegality, especially while using violence internationally.
How can it best be done? One aspect is particularly perplexing. Why is this question never raised?
John Roberts
Comment on this letter
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
Comments on this letter
|
|