View previous stories
	The ‘fragility’ of judicial independence across the globe today by Geoffrey Robertson QC International Bar Association Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI)   In the latest (IBAHRI) thematic paper, Geoffrey Robertson QC reflects on some of the problems facing the ‘fragile reed’ of judicial independence across the globe, and calls on judges to speak out whenever they have reason to believe that their independence is under threat.   ‘Judicial independence is fundamental to democracy and lip-service is paid to it by most states. However, it is a fragile reed, beset by problems of political appointments, government favours to compliant judges, prosecution powers over the court and the potential for misuse of the removal process of impeachment by populist politicians’ - Geoffrey Robertson QC   While the 28-page paper, Judicial Independence: Some Recent Problems, addresses some of the most serious threats to judicial independence – citing cases from Bolivia to Zimbabwe – the body of the paper examines some of the more ‘subtle political influences’ on the judiciary, including: difficulties of detecting or dealing with judges who are under the influence of, or bending to the will of, the executive; confusion associated with methods of ‘impeachment’ or removal of senior judges; pressures on courts to cut costs in times of austerity; and the limited remedies available, both domestically and internationally, against governments that seek to influence judges according to their political will.   Within this context, Mr Robertson writes that ‘devotion to the rule of law’ and the ‘duty to defy the state’ calls for great courage: ‘Reprisal can come from a government-incited mob (in Zimbabwe, magistrates who have acquitted Mugabe critics have had their houses burned down) or a public dismissal from office (in Sri Lanka, the fate of Shirani Bandaranayake) or, more commonly and sinisterly, secret threats not to renew judicial contracts or to post the judge to an obscure court or simply to dismiss or overlook for promotion those jurists considered by politicians in power to be “unreliable”’. Mr Robertson adds, ‘Those judges who do their daily, often plodding, duty without fear or favour are the mainstay of democracy, while those who do it despite the threat of danger to their lives are truly heroic’.   The thematic paper, the fourth in the IBAHRI series, also argues the need for investigative journalism and the ability to criticise ‘bad judges’, in order to fully safeguard judicial independence.   Mr Robertson writes, ‘There remains a lingering attraction for judges in Europe and elsewhere to cling to the power to punish their critics. This can be seen, most lamentably, in some of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, which applies a Convention that makes “freedom of expression” under Article 10 subject to an exception for “maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”.   Instead of confining this exception to cases where attacks on judges are intended to put pressure on them to decide a case in a particular way, some decisions have upheld convictions of editors for making fair and accurate condemnations of biased or politicised judges’.   IBAHRI Director Dr Phillip Tahmindjis AM commented, ‘This thematic paper provides a thought-provoking contribution to discussions surrounding judicial independence. Mr Robertson captures the complex and delicate nature of some of the problems facing the independence of the judiciary across the globe today.   * Access the paper via the link below. See also International Commission of Jurists, Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers: http://www.icj.org/launch-of-country-profiles-on-independence-of-judges-prosecutors-and-lawyers/ Visit the related web page
	This new, stupid conflict will ultimately change nothing by Daniel Barenboim, Peter Beaumont The Guardian, agencies   31 July 2014   Worrying escalation of anti-Semitic acts around Gaza conflict. (European Network Against Racism)   Protests against the Gaza conflict invoking “death to the Jews” have hit the streets of several European cities, especially in France and Belgium, while online anti-Semitic hate speech, especially on social media, is exploding across Europe.   In Britain, around 100 anti-Semitic incidents were recorded in July, double the usual number, whereas in the Netherlands, there has been a spike in anti-Semitic hate on the Internet, with reports of 400 expressions of anti-Semitism in the last two weeks, mainly on social media. In Germany, anti-Israel protesters were prevented from attacking a synagogue in Berlin, and molotov cocktails were thrown at a synagogue in Wuppertal. Anti-Semitic graffiti and flyers are appearing on walls and in shops in many cities across Europe. In Liege, Belgium, a café owner put up a sign stating that dogs were welcome, but Jews were not allowed.   This situation is provoking a climate of fear among Jewish communities in Europe. Many are renouncing their visibility in public spaces for fear of retaliation. Jewish organisations and representatives – including the most progressive – are receiving threats and are under police protection.   ENAR Chair Sarah Isal said: “This spike in anti-Semitism across Europe is simply unacceptable. A fight for justice – in this case support for the Palestinian cause – is entirely legitimate but cannot succeed by perpetrating racist acts and denying the rights to security and protection of European Jews.”   People have the right to express their opinions and their dissent publicly. However, this should under no circumstances give way to racial hatred towards communities that are linked to countries whose policies are in breach of the fundamental rights of other populations.   We call on public authorities across Europe to take steps to prevent acts of hatred towards Jewish communities. They should also show similar willingness to act when other communities are the targets of violence and hatred. Hatred is hatred, wherever it comes from and whatever its shape.   http://www.enar-eu.org/Press-statement-Worrying   *The FREE Initiative is the first pan-European resource to offer practical guidance on countering far-right extremism across Europe. It aims to inspire and promote cross-border learning among those working against violent far-right extremism. It showcases the good work that is being done across Europe to prevent, intervene and respond. The FREE initiative has to date worked across 10 countries: Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden and the United Kingdom: http://thefreeinitiative.com/   25 July 2014   Both Israelis and Palestinians are losers in this conflict, by Daniel Barenboim.   I am writing these words as someone who holds two passports – Israeli and Palestinian. I am writing them with a heavy heart, as the events in Gaza over the past few weeks have confirmed my long-standing conviction that there is no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is not a political conflict but a human one, between two peoples who share the deep and seemingly irreconcilable conviction that they are entitled to the same small piece of land.   It is because this fact has been neglected that all the negotiations, all the attempts at brokering a solution to the conflict that have taken place until now, have failed. Instead of acknowledging this true nature of the conflict and trying to resolve it, the parties have been looking for easier and fast solutions. Unfortunately, there are no shortcuts when it comes to solving this conflict. A shortcut only works when we know the territory we cut through – and in this case, nobody possesses that knowledge as the essence of the conflict remains unknown and unexplored.   I have deep sympathy for the fear with which my fellow Israelis live today: the constant sounds of rockets being fired, of knowing that you or someone close to you might get hurt. But I have profound compassion with the plight of my fellow Palestinians in Gaza, who live in terror and mourn such devastating losses on a daily basis. After decades of devastation and loss on both sides, the conflict has today reached a previously unimaginable level of gruesomeness and despair.   I therefore dare to propose that this may be the moment to look for a true solution to the problem. A ceasefire is of course indispensable, but it is by far not enough. The only way out of this tragedy, the only way to avoid more tragedy and horror, is to take advantage of the hopelessness of the situation and force everybody to talk to one another. There is no point in Israel refusing to negotiate with Hamas or to acknowledge a unity government. No, Israel must listen to those Palestinians who are in a position to speak with one tongue.   The first resolution that has to be achieved is a joint agreement on the fact that there is no military solution. Only then can one begin discussing the question of justice for the Palestinians, which is long overdue, and of security for Israel, which it rightfully requires. We Palestinians feel that we need to receive a just solution. Our quest is fundamentally one for justice and for the rights given to every people on Earth: autonomy, self-determination, liberty, and all that comes with it. We Israelis need an acknowledgement of our right to live on the same piece of land. The division of the land can only come after both sides have not only accepted but understood that we can live together side by side, most definitely not back to back.   At the very heart of the much-needed rapprochement is the need for a mutual feeling of empathy, or compassion. In my opinion, compassion is not merely a sentiment that results from a psychological understanding of a person’s need, but it is a moral obligation. Only through trying to understand the other side’s plight can we take a step towards each other. As Schopenhauer put it: “Nothing will bring us back to the path of justice so readily as the mental picture of the trouble, grief and lamentation of the loser.” In this conflict, we are all losers. We can only overcome this sad state if we finally begin to accept the other side’s suffering and their rights. Only from this understanding can we attempt to build a future together.   * Daniel Barenboim is an Israeli Argentine-born pianist and conductor.   14 July 2014   This new, stupid conflict will ultimately change nothing, by Peter Beaumont.   A few weeks ago, I met a senior officer of the Israeli Defence Force at the military HQ in Tel Aviv. The conversation turned to the then campaign in the West Bank against Hamas. He suggested a kind of normality about the situation. After all, he added, the Israeli military had been fighting Hamas for many a year.   It was only later, thinking about what he had said, that his comment stood out, as did the question I should have asked; the question that should be answered not only by Israel"s generals and political leaders but by Hamas"s leadership as well.   Why, in the midst of the third war of its kind since late 2008, does either side believe there will be a different outcome than the two conflicts in Gaza that preceded it, most recently two years ago? Because the towering, venal stupidity of the current conflict in Gaza is that it will change nothing at all. Despite the rhetoric from both sides, Israel cannot win, any more than Hamas can lose.   Perhaps worse than that is the fact that many Israeli officials understand that a defeat of Hamas in the terms regularly trotted out to the Israeli public is not, in any case, in the country"s interest, since it would allow the emergence and empowerment of other more radical groups.   What we have witnessed in the past few days, in a conflict that has seen residential areas targeted by bombs, missiles and naval gunfire, is a conflict of limited and murky ambition – war as an act of retaliatory grandstanding and violence as a form of negotiation. On the Israeli side, Binyamin Netanyahu, despite being lukewarm about the operation in its run-up, has been pushed by the more hardline members of his cabinet to hit Gaza hard. In that respect, it has been a war of politics as much as Israeli public safety.   The rocket fire out of Gaza, the claimed cause of the conflict either, did not come out of the blue. It escalated out of a growing tit-for-tat exchange that saw ceasefire violations on both sides, the worst of them being triggered by a night of heavy air raids that followed the discovery of the bodies of three kidnapped Israeli teenagers. There was also the massive clampdown on Hamas – blamed for the teenagers murders – on the West Bank that saw hundreds of Palestinians rounded up in night raids.   Behind all that, however, almost forgotten now was another fateful calculation. Pushed again by domestic political considerations in his coalition, Netanyahu gambled – as the US-sponsored peace talks collapsed – that no peace process would mean a return to the status quo. But the absence of a peace process has brought a dangerous escalation of tension and conflict.   From Hamas"s point of view, the calculation has been equally cynical and short-term. Weakened by its increasing isolation, including the blockade imposed by the new, military-led government in Egypt, it has found itself in an increasingly difficult political and financial situation.   Hamas has rationalised that inviting a conflict, while potentially bloody, will see Israel struggle to defeat it. For despite Israeli claims that Gaza is "a hostage of Hamas", the truth is that a large enough percentage of the population – perhaps as much as 30% – supports it, enough to make that claim nonsensical. And Hamas has rationalised, too, that when ordinary Gazans are suffering under Israeli bombs, they are more likely to support it.   Figuring that the war will end shortly with mediation, as previous wars have done, it has set out its stall of equally limited demands: a return to the status quo ante of the last ceasefire arrangement negotiated with Egypt in 2012; an end to Israeli meddling in the unity government backed by Hamas; and an Israeli cessation of hostilities.   So what will this war buy with the blood of the all dead? Not an end to the conflict but a period of calm for Israelis that will end again, necessarily, because the underlying conflict still exists. Politically, perhaps, it will guarantee that the febrile rightwing coalition of Netanyahu lasts another year or longer with him at its helm.   And it will end as the last two Gazan conflicts have ended. Egypt, a historic broker of ceasefires in Gaza, will calculate a point when Hamas has been hurt enough and public opinion over its inaction is beginning to become damaging. It will step in with a deal that will see it talk once again, albeit in a limited fashion, to Israel – and at last to regulate a situation it does not want to see spiral out of control.   Then this stupidest of wars will stop. Israel"s tanks will pull back to their bases. The Gazan rocket teams will lick their wounds, rebuild their arsenals in the metal shops and commission new murals for the walls to sanctify their fallen dead in the public memory.   And the civilian dead will stay dead, discarded pieces in a pointless game of chess.   http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/hamas-and-the-battle-for-gaza/5610874 http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-palestine/b039-gaza-and-israel-new-obstacles-new-solutions.aspx
	View more stories