You can't live long enough to make them all yourself. 'new' rules of armed conflict : comments.
Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1
|
2
|
|||||
3
|
4 |
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
(no subject)
Sorry, but you've touched on a pet peeve of mine, but it's relevant. If the ICRC is subject to politicization like that (since there's no reason in the world, no matter what your view about Israel may be, to exclude the Israeli version of the Red Cross from the international organization) like that, what it has to say about any sort of international law, etc. can't be taken as being accurate without prior review.
(no subject)
any and every organisation is political. it is unavoidable. they're comprised of people. nothing is perfect.
the report is important because customary international law applies to all nations, regardless of their politics. and as a lawyer with some specific expertise in the area of armed conflict law, i'm curious about what the red cross considers to be customary law in this area. to see what, by actual usage, just might be realistic to expect nations to follow.
the mda and the palestinian bodies inclusion amongst the membership of the icrc is not simply a one way matter. membership is subject to rules like any other organisation - which may not suit every potential applicant. membership, or otherwise, is just as political as any other matter in the international arena. there are people on both sides of every conflict. and often more than a few playing games in the middle.
unless and until i get a chance to actually see the report, i'm holding off on judgement of its contents.