Comments on: Human rights in jeopardy http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/11/30/human-rights-in-jeopardy/ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:01:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Iqbal Khaldun http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/11/30/human-rights-in-jeopardy/#comment-24033 Iqbal Khaldun Sun, 03 Dec 2006 00:48:55 +0000 http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/11/30/human-rights-in-jeopardy/#comment-24033 Reminds me of this lecture I attended recently on human rights and the laws of war. The lecturer was trying to argue that it is lawful for a belligerent to target a building filled with civilians if militants are firing rockets from it (the key requirement is 'military necessity' - if a target is one of military necessity then you can shoot at it). She bemoaned the fact that some people thought this was illegal, but if only they realised that the laws of war are not interested in preventing conflict, only regulating it. The laws of war regulate death and destruction rather than outlaw them, in other words. That happens to be true, but the laws of war aren't exactly verses of the Bible. I think she was trying to emphasise her point by using that example, rather than trying to be an apologist for, say, Israel's bombings in Lebanon. But you've got to wonder what type of cute world people like that live in when they're so blindly, narrowly and naively focused on their area of expertise. Hope the parallels with HRW in that story are clear... Speaking of HRW a friend and I used to play a silly game a while back when we'd fwd each other the most obscure conflict press release sent out by Human Rights Watch. There must be immense pressure on bodies like HRW to be seen to be do-gooders. Unfortunately that often means making glib indictments quite removed from reality. Reminds me of this lecture I attended recently on human rights and the laws of war. The lecturer was trying to argue that it is lawful for a belligerent to target a building filled with civilians if militants are firing rockets from it (the key requirement is ‘military necessity’ - if a target is one of military necessity then you can shoot at it). She bemoaned the fact that some people thought this was illegal, but if only they realised that the laws of war are not interested in preventing conflict, only regulating it. The laws of war regulate death and destruction rather than outlaw them, in other words. That happens to be true, but the laws of war aren’t exactly verses of the Bible.

I think she was trying to emphasise her point by using that example, rather than trying to be an apologist for, say, Israel’s bombings in Lebanon. But you’ve got to wonder what type of cute world people like that live in when they’re so blindly, narrowly and naively focused on their area of expertise. Hope the parallels with HRW in that story are clear…

Speaking of HRW a friend and I used to play a silly game a while back when we’d fwd each other the most obscure conflict press release sent out by Human Rights Watch. There must be immense pressure on bodies like HRW to be seen to be do-gooders. Unfortunately that often means making glib indictments quite removed from reality.

]]>