What 'top lawyers' got wrong on Palestinian recognition
Lawyers, as you may have noticed, are one of those professions where any lawyer deemed worth quoting on any topic is automatically classified as 'top'. Try and think of the last time you ever saw a barrister or advocate described as one of the 'bottom KCs' in the stable, and you'll ponder in vain. Journalistic cliché has its catechism, and the cub reporter can only follow its rules. This approach sometimes produces absurd results.
READ MORE: Donald Trump – peacemaker-in-chief or a global agitator?
I remember, as a callow PhD student in the 2000s, one arch-Unionist newspaper picked up on a blog post I'd written, critical of some aspect of Scottish Government policy of the day. In their write-up, I was described as a leading 'boffin' – like 'revellers', a curious species which only exists inside the pages of tabloid newspapers – who'd 'blasted' the hapless Holyrood regime.
On any objective analysis, what I'd written was a fairly well-informed reflection as a minnow swimming in the shallow end of legal academia – but because the paper liked the critical line I was advancing, I was polished up, puffed up, and field promoted in my mid-twenties to the status of 'top lawyer'.
In this case, however, many of those reported to have added their signatures to this menacing message to Keir Starmer are lawyers of significant eminence, including established academics in the field of international law, leading silks coming down with experience of advocating in the highest courts in the land, and even one former Supreme Court judge.
And given all this legal eminence, it is sad to see them putting their names to hokum like this, which most of the signatories must know is a transparent distortion of the true position, pitched in a way which is not only guaranteed but apparently
designed to be misunderstood. I can't think of a clearer example in recent years of the cynical exploitation of real expertise to push a feeble argument for nakedly ideological reasons.
Politically, Starmer's intervention has prompted a range of reactions. First, why the conditionality? Why should recognition of Palestinian statehood be contingent on what the occupying power does or ceases to do to its civilian population? The International Court of Justice recently recognised 'the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including its right to an independent and sovereign state'. This includes its territorial integrity. If the Palestinian people already have these rights as a matter of international law, why should the UK wait for an Israeli ceasefire before recognising them, or delay full recognition if the killing stops and basic necessities begin to flow back into the region? In law and in politics, neither stance is logical.
You might also ask yourself where precisely the line is being drawn on 'intolerability' by the UK Government. Why here? Why now? Experience over the past year suggests Starmer and those around him have remarkably strong stomachs for violations of conduct actually prohibited by international law, such as the use of lethal force on civilian populations and indiscriminate deployment of deadly munitions in urban areas occupied by men, women and children who cannot be classified as combatants.
The problem for our 'top lawyers' is that they're making bricks without straw. Their main argument is that because Palestine might not meet the criteria for statehood identified in the Montevideo Convention – an international treaty the UK has not even signed – then it would be unlawful for the UK to press ahead and extend diplomatic recognition of the Palestinian regime.
They argue that Palestine lacks a permanent population, clearly defined territory, a specific government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states – and therefore shouldn't be recognised as one. For the purposes of this intellectual exercise – and that's exactly what this intervention amounts to – we are apparently not to think about how all these population displacements and territorial encroachments on Palestinian territory might have happened and who might have been responsible for them.
It isn't just the weakness of the underlying argument which rankles. It is the cynical framing. Describing recognition of the state of Palestine as 'breaking' international law might imply to the average reader that the UK might face some kind of criminal sanction or judicial challenge if the Government recognises Palestine. It won't. It can't. That isn't how it works.
READ MORE: Rhoda Meek: The drive to go digital has real implications in rural and island areas
[[UK Government]] ministers are quite right to push back hard, underscoring that this is a political judgement for states to exercise. To give you some kind of context on exactly how persuasive these 'top lawyers'' analysis is internationally, [[Palestine]] is already recognised as a sovereign state by almost 150 members of the United Nations. In total, there are only 193 member states of the UN. You work out the percentages. If these legal peers were right, that's a lot of breaches of international law nobody noticed before. The intervention is pure pettifoggery.
The top lawyers must know this. It is the kind of basic legal fact which you must have tripped over in that long climb to the top, which won you your ermine macintosh and all those magic post-nominals.
This story is a little microcosm of the uses and abuses of legal ambiguity in thinking and reporting on what has happened in Gaza over the past two years. A huge amount of energy has been expended online and on air asserting, denying and quibbling about whether or not what is being done by Israeli forces to the civilian population in Gaza meets the legal tests for genocide under international law.
Article II of the Genocide Convention defines the international crime of genocide as encompassing 'any of the following acts' committed with intent to destroy a 'national, ethnic, racial or religious group' in 'whole or in part'. Prohibited conduct includes killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to them, or 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part'. The definition also extends to 'imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group' and 'forcibly transferring children of the group to another group'.
Language matters. What we call things matters. Allegations of genocidal violence are dire ones to make. But an extraordinary wattage of intellectual energy over the past two years has gone into disputes over whether this threshold has been reached – as if it is the only legally and morally significant issue at stake in Palestine.
This illustrates what a powerful distraction legalistic reasoning can be. Imagine you're sitting in your office and a masked man kicks in the door. He's armed with a gun, and opens fire, killing one of your colleagues. If my first reaction to this terrifying event was 'that man just violated Kenny's right to life', you might well think my legalistic mindset had got the better of ordinary human reactions to witnessing violence like this, and finding the right words to describe what you saw. If I immediately started quibbling about whether the shooting was murder or culpable homicide, you might reasonably think I'd missed the enormity of what I'd just seen.
This should be a moral caution. Legal analysis can sometimes have a powerful distancing effect, transforming living people into bloodless abstractions, and tales of human horror into fine conceptual disputes over nice points of law. It can do so in a way which doesn't recognise and capture an injustice, but actually obscures and distracts from the evidence of our own eyes and a full moral engagement with what you witness.
If there is any consolation here, it is that it won't work. Throughout this conflict, ordinary people across the United Kingdom have demonstrated a much keener sense of the injustice being visited on the civilian population in Gaza by the IDF than the UK Government, the Conservative opposition and the tangled web of increasingly manic media opinion formers, who are still trying to persuade the public that their concern about dead, dying and amputated and malnourished civilians somehow represents support for an extremist cause, or amounts to an unjust and exaggerated critique of Israel, itself in some versions of the argument amounting to a form of antisemitism.
'Technically, we are not committing genocide but only systematic violations of international humanitarian law against the civilian population' may not be the persuasive defence argument some very online lawyers seem to think it is. This is one kind of stupidity that only very smart people fall into. Most people, mercifully, have more sense.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
27 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Tariffs are making these 5 things more expensive in Canada
The trade war between the U.S. and Canada has intensified, with President Donald Trump raising tariffs on Canadian imports from 25% to 35%. While many goods are shielded by an existing North American trade agreement, several key products are being significantly impacted. This latest move follows Canada's earlier imposition of its own counter-tariffs on tens of billions of dollars worth of American products. Experts anticipate that this ongoing dispute will lead to a continued rise in prices for everyday consumer goods in Canada. Fridges and washing machines Tariffs are making household appliances, such as fridges and washing machines more expensive for Canadian consumers. This is due to a combination of Canada's counter-tariffs on U.S. made appliances and the rising cost of American sheet steel, which has been impacted by U.S. tariffs on imported metals. According to Statistics Canada, the price of refrigerators and freezers has increased by an average of 2%, while dishwashing and laundry appliances are up 4.5% compared to last year. While consumers may find ways to save by purchasing non-U.S. products, experts say that "pre-tariff" sales are a clear sign that prices for these items will continue to climb. New and used cars The automotive sector has been hit particularly hard by the ongoing trade dispute between the U.S. and Canada, largely due to the intricate nature of their manufacturing supply chains. A vehicle's components can cross the border up to eight times before final assembly, leaving the industry vulnerable to new tariffs. A 25% tariff on cars and trucks not built in the U.S., along with Canada's reciprocal tariffs and broader metals tariffs, has resulted in a price surge for new vehicles, which were up over 5% in June compared to last year. This has also caused a price increase in the used car market, as experts believe consumers are keeping their vehicles longer to avoid purchasing new ones. Peanut butter, canned soup and other groceries Canada's counter-tariffs are noticeably impacting grocery prices, despite a temporary six-month exemption on some products. Loblaw, the country's largest grocer, is now labeling nearly 7,500 items with a "T" to indicate tariff-related price hikes, and its CEO reports that these items have seen a 20% decline in sales. This includes staples like tomato ketchup, peanut butter, jam, turkey, pasta, and oranges. Experts note that prices for fruit juice have increased by 7.5% and canned soups by 8% due to tariffs on American citrus and steel, as Canada imports most of its food packaging from the U.S. Clothing and footwear In an unexpected reversal of a 20-year trend, clothing and footwear prices in Canada rose by 2% year-over-year in June. According to a Statistics Canada analyst, this price increase is less a result of Canada's counter-tariffs on U.S. goods and more a symptom of the broader global trade war. U.S. tariffs on major Asian manufacturing hubs have created supply chain uncertainty, ultimately driving up costs for the Canadian apparel industry and, in turn, for consumers. Housing and remodeling costs The Canadian home building industry is struggling with the rising cost of materials due to tariffs, a factor that is now delaying project deadlines. A residential developer in Ontario noted that while the total cost increase is hard to calculate, the uncertainty has forced her company to seek out local suppliers.
BreakingNews.ie
30 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Putin doubts potency of Trump's ultimatum to end the war, sources say
Russian president Vladimir Putin is unlikely to bow to a sanctions ultimatum expiring this Friday from US president Donald Trump, and retains the goal of capturing four regions of Ukraine in their entirety, sources close to the Kremlin told Reuters. Mr Trump has threatened to hit Russia with new sanctions and impose 100 per cent tariffs on countries that buy its oil - of which the biggest are China and India - unless Putin agrees to a ceasefire in Russia's war in Ukraine. Advertisement Putin's determination to keep going is prompted by his belief that Russia is winning and by scepticism that yet more US sanctions will have much of an impact after successive waves of economic penalties during 3-1/2 years of war, according to three sources familiar with discussions in the Kremlin. The Russian leader does not want to anger Mr Trump, and he realises that he may be spurning a chance to improve relations with Washington and the West, but his war goals take precedence, two of the sources said. Putin's goal is to fully capture the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, which Russia has claimed as its own, and then to talk about a peace agreement, one of the sources said. "If Putin were able to fully occupy those four regions which he has claimed for Russia he could claim that his war in Ukraine had reached his objectives," said James Rodgers, author of the forthcoming book "The Return of Russia". Advertisement The current talks process, in which Russian and Ukrainian negotiators have met three times since May, was an attempt by Moscow to convince Mr Trump that Putin was not rejecting peace, the first source said, adding that the talks were devoid of real substance apart from discussions on humanitarian exchanges. Russia says it is serious about agreeing a long-term peace in the negotiations but that the process is complicated because the two sides' stances are so far apart. Putin last week described the talks as positive. Nuclear war risks Moscow's stated demands include a full Ukrainian withdrawal from the four regions and acceptance by Kyiv of neutral status and limits on the size of its military – demands rejected by Ukraine. In a sign that there may yet be an opportunity to strike a deal before the deadline, Mr Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to visit Russia this week, following an escalation in rhetoric between Mr Trump and Moscow over risks of nuclear war. "President Trump wants to stop the killing, which is why he is selling American-made weapons to Nato members and threatening Putin with biting tariffs and sanctions if he does not agree to a ceasefire," White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in response to a request for comment. Advertisement The Kremlin did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story. All the sources spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation. Mr Trump, who in the past has praised Putin and held out the prospect of lucrative business deals between their two countries, has lately expressed growing impatience with the Russian president. He has complained about what he called Putin's "bullshit" and described Russia's relentless bombing of Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities as "disgusting". The Kremlin has said it noted Mr Trump's statements but it has declined to respond to them. Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Svyrydenko last week called on the world to respond with "maximum pressure" after the worst Russian air strike of the year killed 31 people in Kyiv, including five children, in what she called Russia's response to Mr Trump's deadline. Advertisement Forces advance The first source said Putin was privately concerned about the recent deterioration of US ties. Putin still retains the hope that Russia can again befriend America and trade with the West, and "he is worried" about Mr Trump's irritation, this person said. But with Moscow's forces advancing on the battlefield and Ukraine under heavy military pressure, Putin does not believe now is the time to end the war, the source said, adding that neither the Russian people nor the army would understand if he stops now. Mr Rodgers, the author, said Putin has invested his political reputation and legacy in the war in Ukraine. "We know from his previous writings and statements that he sees himself as part of a strong tradition of standing up to the West and the rest of world to defend Russia's interests," he said. The Kremlin leader values the relationship with Mr Trump and does not want to anger him, however, "he simply has a top priority - Putin cannot afford to end the war just because Trump wants it," the second Russian source said. Advertisement A third person familiar with Kremlin thinking also said Russia wanted to take all four regions and did not see the logic in stopping at a time of battlefield gains during Russia's summer offensive. Ukraine has suffered some of its biggest territorial losses of 2025 in the past three months, including 502 square kilometres in July, according to Black Bird Group, a Finland-based military analysis centre. In total, Russia has occupied around a fifth of Ukraine. Russia's military General Staff has told Putin that the Ukrainian front will crumble in two or three months, the first person said. However, Russia's recent gains remain relatively minor in purely territorial terms, with only 5,000 square kilometres (1,930 square miles) of Ukraine taken since the start of last year, less than 1 per cent of the country's overall territory, according to a June report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank. Ukrainian and Western military sources, acknowledge that Russia is making gains, but only gradually and with heavy casualties. Russian war bloggers say Moscow's forces have been bogged down during its current summer offensive in areas where the terrain and dense urban landscape favoured Ukraine, but assess that other areas should be faster to take. He's made threats before. Mr Trump's sanctions threat was "painful and unpleasant," but not a catastrophe, the second source said. The third source said there was a feeling in Moscow that "there's not much more that they can do to us". It was also not clear if Mr Trump would follow through on his ultimatum, this person said, adding that "he's made threats before" and then not acted, or changed his mind. The source also said it was hard to imagine that China would stop buying Russian oil on instructions from Mr Trump, and that his actions risked backfiring by driving oil prices higher. As a consequence of previous rounds of sanctions, Russian oil and gas exporters have taken big hits to their revenues, and foreign direct investment in the country fell by 63 per cent last year, according to UN trade data. Around $300 billion of central bank assets have been frozen in foreign jurisdictions. Support from China, North Korea World Russia says it will no longer abide by self-impose... Read More But Russia's ability to wage war has been unimpeded, thanks in part to ammunition supplies from North Korea and imports from China of dual-use components that have sustained a massive rise in weapons production. The Kremlin has repeatedly said that Russia has some "immunity" to sanctions. Mr Trump has acknowledged Russia's skill in skirting the measures. "They're wily characters and they're pretty good at avoiding sanctions, so we'll see what happens," he told reporters at the weekend, when asked what his response would be if Russia did not agree to a ceasefire. The first Russian source noted that Putin, in pursuing the conflict, was turning his back on a US offer made in March that Washington, in return for his agreement to a full ceasefire, would remove US sanctions, recognise Russian possession of Crimea - annexed from Ukraine in 2014 - and acknowledge de facto Russian control of the territory captured by its forces since 2022. The source called the offer a "fantastic chance," but said stopping a war was much more difficult than starting it.
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
India accuses EU and US of ‘indulging' in trade with Russia
India has accused the EU and US of 'indulging' in trade with Russia after Donald Trump criticised New Delhi for propping up Vladimir Putin's war machine by buying its oil. The country's foreign ministry said it was forced to buy 'predictable and affordable' Russian oil after other supplies were diverted to Europe after the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. It comes after the US president threatened to 'substantially raise' tariffs on India, adding the country was buying discounted Russian oil and 'selling it on the open market for big profits.' India called the attack 'unjustified and unreasonable' in a statement, arguing that its dealings with Russia were 'a necessity' for the country's economic prospects. It added: 'It is revealing that the very nations criticising India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia. Unlike our case, such trade is not even a vital national compulsion.' While Brussels has vowed to wean itself off Russian oil by 2027, it still imported €22.3bn (£19.3bn) worth of fossil fuels in 2024, with Moscow its third largest trading partner. India said the EU's trade with Russia, at €67.5bn (£58.6bn) of goods last year, 'is significantly more' than India's total trade with Russia, which stood at £51.7bn in the financial year ending in April. India's imports are dominated by oil, with total trade with Russia now six times higher than before the pandemic. By contrast, Brussels has reduced its trade with Moscow from €257bn in 2021.
