International law prohibits inflicting punishment on innocent civilians

May 6, 2002


Human right must be respected by all, and in all circumstances. That is why the international community is right to seek to investigate the recent assault on Jenin, argues Mary Robinson

The Irish Times has, in the past few weeks, carried several interesting articles addressing human rights issues and standards in the current conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

I would like to refer to one in particular, written by a respected law lecturer, Tom Cooney, which unfortunately contains factual errors and some assertions and conclusions with which I would take issue.

Initially, let me say that Mr Cooney's assertion that the United Nations Human Rights Commission is "under Mary Robinson" is wrong and - while it is a popular misconception - indicates he is not fully informed about the United Nations human rights programme.

In fact, my mandate as High Commissioner clearly places my responsibilities "within the framework of the overall competence, authority and decisions of the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Commission on Human Rights".

Resolutions and decisions of the 53-member inter-governmental commission - Ireland has just been re-elected to membership - task the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights with a range of duties, and the office serves as its secretariat.

Mr Cooney's contentions that the Secretary-General "has an animus against Israel" and that he "suppressed video evidence his staff had about the seizure and murder of Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah" are simply not true.

Mr Kofi Annan is a widely respected international statesman and there was an inquiry on the issue of the tapes, established by the Secretary-General himself.

There has never been any suggestion that he had any part in withholding the video in question.

Leaving aside these matters there are serious issues of justice involved in the current debate which must not be forgotten.

They have particular significance for Irish people because in our history we ourselves have had to have recourse to international human rights bodies to uphold human rights standards in the midst of conflict.

In the past we have obtained vindication from the European Court of Human Rights that even in times of emergencies and conflicts the basic standards of human rights must be upheld and that the principle of proportionality must be respected.

Ireland has thus helped to build the international jurisprudence.

These are two core issues I would raise in relation to the current situation in the Middle East.

Firstly, the role of the international community in upholding human rights and, secondly, the role of proportionality in armed conflict.

Is it not right that the international community must seek to uphold basic human rights in all situations, even in time of conflict?

I believe that this is a human rights imperative and my Office has sought to defend human rights in a broad range of conflicts, including Afghanistan, Chechnya, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, East Timor, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone.

We have sought to do likewise in relation to the current conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, calling on the Palestinian leadership to stop the suicide bombings that kill innocent Israelis, and urging the Israeli leadership to exercise maximum vigilance when it comes to the protection of civilian life in the conduct of military operations.

Let me pose some questions.

What is so wrong with speaking out against the indiscriminate killing of Israeli civilians or the wanton killing of Palestinian civilians?

Are not both statements made in good faith out of a genuine concern for human rights?

What makes one suggest that there is an "impression that there is a moral equivalence in the conflict"; is it not just to attach worth to every life and to seek to protect every individual?

Is not the role of the human rights movement to act for the protection of human lives wherever they are put at risk?

Let me turn to the issue of proportionality and respect for humanitarian law in the course of armed conflict.

The principle, that measures taken to respond to an emergency or risk must be proportionate to the threat presented, is one that is well established in international human rights law.

AGAIN let me pose some questions. No matter what grounds are advanced to justify Israel's military incursion into the West Bank, is it not fair to expect of a functioning democracy that the means and methods of combat would be proportionate to the circumstances?

Is there not an obligation on the government involved to demonstrate that it had given instructions and taken measures in an effort to see to it that the military actions of its armed forces were proportionate in all the circumstances?

Is it not fair for the international community to say to a democratic government that the rules of international humanitarian law prohibit the waging of war or inflicting collective punishments on innocent civilians?

Where is the sense of right and wrong on the part of those who criticise the United Nations for wanting to investigate what took place in Jenin?

Is it not precisely in situations such as Jenin, where there are allegations and counter-allegations, that a distinguished and impartial fact-finding team can help establish the facts by listening to both sides, interviewing those in a position to provide information, sifting them, and coming to fair and balanced conclusions?

The whole thrust of international relations at the start of the 21st century is towards justice, respect for international human rights law, accountability, pursuit of the truth, and the drawing of lessons in particular situations. I welcome the report of Human Rights Watch, which documents serious abuses in Jenin and calls for criminal investigations to ascertain individual responsibility for the most serious violations.

Those who are saying that international human rights standards must be upheld in conflict situations; that allegations of excesses must be investigated; and that the truth must be established so that lessons can be learned and preventive measures taken in the future, are in the mainstream in the age of human rights.

There is a simple but compelling idea that must prevail: human rights must be respected by all, in all situations.

Mary Robinson is United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights