Comments for THE RED TELEPHONE http://theredtelephone.wordpress.com News of the NSW Young Lawyers International Law Committee Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:33:37 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on The Lowy Institute by Robert Dunworth http://theredtelephone.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/the-lowy-institute/#comment-3 Robert Dunworth Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:33:37 +0000 http://theredtelephone.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/the-lowy-institute/#comment-3 I highly recommend all who are interested in international policy to subscribe to the Lowy Institute's email updates if not also their RSS feed. The institute's events are so popular now that you need an invitation to attend. I note that the institute was ranked very highly in the <a href="http://www.afrmagazine.com/edition.aspx" rel="nofollow">Australian Financial Review Magazine's recent power issue</a>. I highly recommend all who are interested in international policy to subscribe to the Lowy Institute’s email updates if not also their RSS feed. The institute’s events are so popular now that you need an invitation to attend. I note that the institute was ranked very highly in the Australian Financial Review Magazine’s recent power issue.

]]> Comment on Australia v Ahmadinejad by Robert Dunworth http://theredtelephone.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/australia-v-ahmadinejad/#comment-2 Robert Dunworth Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:31:17 +0000 http://theredtelephone.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/australia-v-ahmadinejad/#comment-2 As we have come to expect, it seems that Mr Rudd has been doing his homework. Unfortunately for Mr Rudd, it seems that while he had a quick look over the <a href="http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html" rel="nofollow">Genocide Convention</a>, he got the wrong study notes to go with it. Mr Rudd's statement follows the 11 January 2007 <a href="http://www.house.gov/rothman/pdf/hconres21.pdf" rel="nofollow">bill tabled in the US Congress</a> by <a href="http://www.house.gov/rothman/news_releases/2007/jan12b.htm" rel="nofollow"> Congressmen Steve Rothman (D-NJ) and Mark Kirk (R-IL)</a> calling on the UN to charge Mr Ahmadinejad with genocide following statements made at the World without Zionism Conference in Tehran on October 27 2005. Messrs Rothman, Kirk and Rudd apply the genocide convention as it stands. Article 2 defines genocide. Article 3(c) states that direct and public incitement to commit genocide shall be punishable. Article 4 states that the punishment shall apply even to constitutionally responsible rulers. The catch is that the charge is to be brought before a competent tribunal of the state in which the genocide occurred (which I just can't see happening) or before an international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction (Art 6). Consequently, the task falls back to Mr Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, of which Iran is a State Party. Perhaps Messrs Rothman, Kirk and Rudd referred to Art 9 when they stated that the charge should be brought before the ICJ. The Article states that questions of interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention shall be submitted to the ICJ, which is not my understanding of Mr Rudd's comments. The only way to bring a charge of genocide against person in an international tribunal is through the ICC. While I look forward to Mr Ahmadinejad being held responsible for some pretty abhorrent comments, they are very unlikely to meet the requirements for a charge of genocide. Nonetheless, I applaud Mr Rudd's stated desire to have Mr Ahmadinejad held accountable under the rule of law. As we have come to expect, it seems that Mr Rudd has been doing his homework. Unfortunately for Mr Rudd, it seems that while he had a quick look over the Genocide Convention, he got the wrong study notes to go with it. Mr Rudd’s statement follows the 11 January 2007 bill tabled in the US Congress by Congressmen Steve Rothman (D-NJ) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) calling on the UN to charge Mr Ahmadinejad with genocide following statements made at the World without Zionism Conference in Tehran on October 27 2005.

Messrs Rothman, Kirk and Rudd apply the genocide convention as it stands. Article 2 defines genocide. Article 3(c) states that direct and public incitement to commit genocide shall be punishable. Article 4 states that the punishment shall apply even to constitutionally responsible rulers. The catch is that the charge is to be brought before a competent tribunal of the state in which the genocide occurred (which I just can’t see happening) or before an international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction (Art 6). Consequently, the task falls back to Mr Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, of which Iran is a State Party.

Perhaps Messrs Rothman, Kirk and Rudd referred to Art 9 when they stated that the charge should be brought before the ICJ. The Article states that questions of interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention shall be submitted to the ICJ, which is not my understanding of Mr Rudd’s comments. The only way to bring a charge of genocide against person in an international tribunal is through the ICC.

While I look forward to Mr Ahmadinejad being held responsible for some pretty abhorrent comments, they are very unlikely to meet the requirements for a charge of genocide. Nonetheless, I applaud Mr Rudd’s stated desire to have Mr Ahmadinejad held accountable under the rule of law.

]]>