Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1581533
 
 

Footnotes (57)



 


 



A Critique of the Goldstone Report and its Treatment of International Humanitarian Law


Abraham Bell


Bar Ilan University - Faculty of Law; University of San Diego School of Law

March 30, 2010

American Society of International Law Proceedings, Vol. 104
San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 10-019

Abstract:     
This essay was prepared for a panel discussion on The Goldstone Report and the Modern Law of War at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law.

The essay briefly examines the controversial Goldstone Report’s treatment of four legal issues: (1) collective punishment; (2) terrorism; (3) distinction and proportionality and (4) human shielding and perfidy.

The essay finds that the Goldstone Report’s treatment of these issues does not comport with commonly accepted understandings of the meanings of the doctrine. Specifically, on collective punishment, the Report expands the term to cover legal acts of retorsion such as economic and political sanctions. On terrorism, the Report rejects recent treaties and Security Council Resolutions and creates legal duties to support terrorist organizations and respect their alleged rights of free association. The Report erases the intent and anticipation components of distinction and proportionality, and also appears to find all collateral damage disproportionate. And the Report functionally grants some parties immunity from the rules of human shielding and perfidy by finding such acts unworthy of investigation or notice.

In addition, the essay highlights several problems in the Report’s treatment of evidence, as well as its decision to apply its revolutionary new legal standards only to Israel.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 9

Keywords: international law, international laws of war, international humanitarian law, collective punishment, distinction, proportionality, terrorism, terrorist organizations, human shielding, perfidy, fact-finding, Human Rights Council, Gaza, Gaza Conflict

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: March 31, 2010 ; Last revised: June 1, 2010

Suggested Citation

Bell, Abraham, A Critique of the Goldstone Report and its Treatment of International Humanitarian Law (March 30, 2010). American Society of International Law Proceedings, Vol. 104; San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 10-019. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1581533

Contact Information

Abraham Bell (Contact Author)
Bar Ilan University - Faculty of Law ( email )
Faculty of Law
Ramat Gan, 52900
Israel
HOME PAGE: http://law.biu.ac.il/English/segelE.php#
University of San Diego School of Law ( email )
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110-2492
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,887
Downloads: 444
Download Rank: 36,561
Footnotes:  57

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.359 seconds