Introduction
Various organizations have referred to what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank as a breach of international law. This reference to international law without any further qualification assumes that, because it is the law, nations should comply with the law. Such compliance has as its counterpart the assumption in a society dominated by a class of employers that individuals should comply with the law–because it is the law. The appeal to international law to justify criticizing Israel’s actions thus contributes to reinforcing the ideology of the law as sacrosanct.
This post will first show that various so-called progressive (social-democratic or social-reformist) organizations do indeed simply refer to a breach of international law as a basis for criticizing Israel’s actions without explaining the limitations of law. The following section will discuss the possible use of international law that may not reinforce the ideology of the law as sacrosanct.
Bolded references to international law are my emphases.
Various Organizations Condemn Israeli’s Genocidal Actions by Referring to International Law Without Pointing Out the Limitations of the Law
- The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), the largest Canadian union:
2. Unifor, the largest private-sector union in Canada:
Unifor joins the international community in expressing profound grief at the mounting loss of life in Israel and Gaza and are urgently calling for an end to violence. To date thousands have been killed – including an increasing number of children — and many more are wounded.
We strongly condemn the attacks that have been recently perpetuated against Israeli civilians and the use of hostages by Hamas to achieve political gains. But retaliation against a Palestinian civilian population is not the answer, and must stop immediately. A humanitarian crisis is unfolding as innocent civilians lose access to food, water, medicines, supplies and electricity. Already, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from Gaza have been forcibly displaced from their homes.
Recent events are fueling and deepening divisions not only in the region, but across the globe – divisions we fear will only exacerbate hate, intolerance, discrimination and violence.
Unifor has long called on the negotiation of a permanent peace agreement with Palestine, the right to self-determination, and for Israel’s government to end its ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories and violations of international law. We fear that without such a process in place, the cycle of violence that plagued relations between both sides for decades will not be broken. Both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to live in peace, freedom and dignity.
Working people bear the brunt of all wars. Unifor will continue to denounce violence in all forms and call for international laws and human rights to be respected and upheld. We call on Canada and allies in the international community to take the necessary steps in order to make peace a reality. Our union will continue to believe in a world based on peace and solidarity for all working people, at home and abroad.
3. The Ontario Public Services Employee Union (OPSEU)/Syndicat des employés de la fonction publique de l’Ontario (SEFPO) Greater Toronto Area Council:
OPSEU/SEFPO Greater Toronto Area Council (GTAC) Statement On the Escalating Violence in Israel-Palestine– Passed at the GTAC Delegates Meeting, Nov. 14, 2023——————————–OPSEU/SEFPO’s Greater Toronto Area Council (GTAC) joins a growing number of our labour and community allies to speak out against the rapidly escalating violence in Israel-Palestine, and join the call for an immediate ceasefire, aid to Gaza, and an end to the blockade.We also add our voice to the growing international movement for a just and lasting peace that respects international law, United Nations resolutions, and the historic rights of the Palestinian people.In particular, GTAC:i) Condemns the brutal killing of unarmed civilians on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict;ii) Deplores any racist, antisemitic or Islamophobic statements or acts against Jews, Muslims, Palestinians or Israelis in Canada and internationally;iii) Demands an immediate end to Israel’s blockade, bombing and invasion of Gaza, and the mass detentions and killing of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank;iv) Demands that the Canadian government call for an immediate ceasefire by both sides, humanitarian aid to Gaza, and the immediate release of all hostages, political prisoners and individuals held in detention without charge by Israel and Hamas;v) Calls for a Canadian and international ban on all arms shipments to the region;vi) Calls for an end to Israel’s illegal occupation, seizure & annexation of Palestinian lands and the forced displacement of Palestinian people;vii) Calls for immediate negotiations towards a just peace that respects international law, United Nations resolutions, and the historic rights of the Palestinian people;viii) Rejects all attempts by governments, politicians, educational institutions and other public bodies to equate criticism of the State of Israel and its policies, or support for the rights of Palestinians, with antisemitism or support for terrorism;ix) Condemns attempts to silence students, educational workers, unions, civil society organizations and individuals – including the voices of immigrant, racialized and marginalized individuals and communities – who speak out for an immediate ceasefire, an end to the blockade, and the rights of Palestinians;x) Calls on locals and members in OPSEU/SEFPO Region 5 and our labour and community allies to support and participate in campaigns and public mobilizations to support the positions outlined above; andxi) Calls on the OPSEU/SEFPO Executive Board to adopt an emergency resolution based on the above points, and to advocate and mobilize for these positions with the OFL and its affiliates, with NUPGE and the CLC, and with our other labour & community allies.
4. Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW):
STATEMENT – CUPW Calls on the Canadian Government to Demand an Immediate Ceasefire in Gaza
Share This
Friday November 10 2023
Over 10, 000 people – including thousands of children – have been killed since violence began in Israel and Palestine on October 7, 2023, and the death toll continues to rise as the war enters its second month. CUPW condemns the targeting, kidnapping and killing of innocent civilians and calls on the Canadian Government to demand an immediate ceasefire.
Palestinians in Gaza are being denied clean water, food, electricity, and other necessities of life. Nowhere is safe in Gaza and as over a million Palestinians have been forced from their homes. Meanwhile, Israeli airstrikes continue, and a ground invasion has begun. Israeli state officials have made clear statements that they intend to clear Gaza of its inhabitants What is happening today in Gaza, according to international bodies and experts, constitutes a genocide.
Collective punishment of the people of Gaza is a clear violation of Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Israeli apartheid and its military occupation of Palestine has led to countless abuses,
from daily indignities and harassment at checkpoints, housing demolitions, forced removals for illegal settlement expansion, and murder with impunity.CUPW has a longstanding resolution and constitutional policy to support the struggle of Palestinian workers and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign until Israel recognizes the right of Palestinian people to self-determination and complies with international law – including respecting the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in accordance with UN Resolution 194.
The path forward for a just and lasting peace is for Israel to end the occupation and adhere to international law. The first step is an immediate ceasefire to stop the killing of innocent civilians and allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza.
5. The Coalition of Canadian Palestinian Organizations:
Date: October 15th 2023
Subject: Urgent Appeal for Action on Recent Events in Gaza
Dear the Right Honorable Mr. Justin Trudeau,
We write to you in profound distress over the deplorable mishandling of the catastrophic events that unfolded in Gaza on October 13, 2023. Furthermore, I express my deep concern over the disconcerting silence that has emanated from the Canadian government, indicating a distressing moral and political failure.
In a shocking and seemingly calculated move, the Israeli government issued directives compelling the Palestinian civilian population of Gaza to relocate to its southern precincts, ostensibly under the guise of safeguarding their welfare during the ongoing hostilities. This facade crumbled rapidly as numerous Palestinian civilians, dutifully adhering to the Israeli authorities’ instructions, found themselves ensnared in a maelstrom of merciless and indiscriminate aerial bombardment perpetrated by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The resulting carnage constituted a staggering human tragedy, magnified by numerous other war crimes against Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
We demand an immediate and unwavering public statement from you, unequivocally condemning the actions of the Israeli government in its treatment of Palestinian civilians. This is not a matter of choice but a moral and political imperative, reflective of Canada’s commitment to safeguard the rights and well-being of the Palestinian people, commensurate with Canada’s support for Israel.
We further insist that you address our nation without delay, condemning Israel’s egregious violations of international law with the same vigor as you condemn the actions of Hamas, Russia, and others. Canada must undertake urgent and substantial measures to exert immense pressure on the Israeli government, compelling the immediate cessation of its flagrant war crimes. It is incumbent upon us to advocate for the establishment of a humanitarian corridor. Canada must also proactively engage with the International Criminal Court to enforce an immediate halt to Israel’s grave violations of international law. What is being committed in Gaza right now is nothing short of ethnic cleansing, a
genocide, collective punishment and a second Nakba.Failure to act promptly would not only constitute an affront to international justice but also cast a damning shadow on Canada’s professed dedication to justice, equality, and human rights.
We anticipate your immediate and resolute commitment to addressing this matter. The human rights defenders and peace lover are closely watching, and it is Canada’s solemn duty to rise to this occasion.
Sincerely,
The Coalition On Canadian Palestinian Organizations
6. Oxfam:
Oxfam calls for a comprehensive negotiated solution based on international law.
Israeli settlements in the West Bank are widely recognized by international governments as a violation of international law.
A Problem with Referring to International Law to Justify Opposing Israel’s Genocidal Actions: Strategy and Tactics
Many leftists do not even bother worrying about references to international law in order to defend Palestinians against the Israeli government’s genocidal actions. After all, should we not use all means at our disposal to defend the Palestinians?
Such a view is short-sighted and has little to do with the pursuit of a socialist strategy. Indeed, the left here in Toronto and elsewhere frequently collapse strategy and tactics, in effect advocating only tactics. This leads nowhere except the perpetuation of the problems and the constant need to resist and to struggle—without any realistic hope of resolving the conditions which constantly generate the problem. This does not mean that reforms should be thrown out of the window. It does mean, however, that activism that stays at the level of tactics will never address the more profound causes of the immediate problems.
Robert Knox (2012) addresses this problem in his article titled “Strategy and Tactics.” in pages 193-229, The Finnish Yearbook of International Law, Volume 21, writes, p. 205:
…only tactical interventions occur, which are then branded as strategic interventions, foreclosing the possibility of an actual strategic intervention.
What is the difference between strategic interventions and tactical interventions? The difference has been specified in terms of war as follows (pages 197-198):
“Carl von Clausewitz, one of the most influential exponents of modern military theory, defined strategy as:
[T]he use of the engagement to attain the object of the war … It must therefore give an aim to the whole military action. Its aim must be in accord with the object of the war. In other words, strategy develops the plan of the war, and to the aforesaid aim links the series of acts which are to lead to it; that is, it plans the separate campaigns and arranges the engagements to be fought in each of them.
Strategy is – in essence – how it is that one would fight and win a war: connecting the various individual battles together so as to achieve this broader objective. In contradistinction to this is tactics, which is concerned with smaller and shorter term matters. Tactics are concerned with how to win the individual battles and engagements of which the war is composed.
If we wish to translate this metaphor into more general terms, we might say that strategy concerns the manner in which we achieve and eventually fulfil our long term aims or objectives, whereas tactics concerns the methods through which we achieve our shorter term aims or objectives. The obvious conclusion here, and one that will be important to bear in mind throughout this article, is that when we talk of ‘pragmatism’ or ‘effectiveness’ it need not be referring to only the immediate situation. As will be explored more fully below, any tactical intervention will also have strategic consequences. This means that when thinking about effectiveness, it is necessary to understand the inherent relation between strategy and tactics. In so doing, the distinction allows us to consider how effective particular (seemingly ‘short term’) interventions might be in the longer term.
The Content of International Law May, in Some Circumstances, Be Usefully Used
How does the issue strategy and tactics relate to international law? We can, under some circumstances, use the international law in terms of its content, but we also need to make clear that this use is due to the exceptional circumstances and that international law in terms of its form not only limits what can be achieved but can easily reinforce the political and economic structures of power.
China Mieville, in his book Between Equal Rights: A Marxist Theory of International Law, emphasises that the law, because of its formal nature of theoretically treating everyone as a legal, isolated subject with, in general, equal rights that are enforceable if one of the parties decides to breach the formal rights of others, has as one of its background conditions the use of force or coercion to ensure that such rights are respected. Law, rights and obligations thus necessarily involve some form of coercive agent to enforce the law, rights and obligations.
But what happens when the so-called equal legal subjects formally are in fact unequal in terms of their actual social and material power?
Robert Knox (2009), in his article “Marxism, International Law, and Political Strategy,” in pages 413-436, Leiden Journal of International Law, Volume 22 (2009), page 417, addresses this issue:
In order to resolve this question Mieville analyses the relationship between law and coercion… although it posits individuals as formally equal, these individuals have radically opposed interests. These opposed interests can only be resolved through violence, which means that the possibility of violent resolution is inherent. … Once it is acknowledged that international law has a deep structural connection withv violence, the solution …
is that – in Marx’s words (from which Mieville takes the title of his book) – ‘between
equal rights force decides’.
Mieville, however, according to Knox, limits his definition of coercion to military coercion. He also assumes that the only actors on the international stage are nations. Knox argues against both assumptions.
There is force through arms–military coercion at the international level and police coercion at the national level (although the military may of course be used internally as well). However, Knox also points out that there is economic coercion and ideological coercion. International actors may also be organized workers across borders and not just nation-states or governments. Page 428:
First, progressive forces often wield a great deal of economic power internal to the bourgeois state (and internationally). It is possible to imagine a situation in which a pattern of economic ‘sabotage’, strikes, and so on by these actors could force a state to adopt a particular ‘interpretation’ of the law.
Forcing governments or nation-states to act in such a way that they appear to be acting legitimately could also be conceived as ideological force or coercion. Page 428:
Second, there is the argument that a concern with legitimacy and consistency might be manifested on the part of those interpreting the law. This position is perhaps best exemplified with the oft-quoted position advocated by E. P. Thompson in his Whigs and Hunters:
If the law is evidently partial and unjust, then it will mask nothing, legitimise nothing,
contribute nothing to any class’s hegemony. The essential precondition for the effectiveness of law, in its function as ideology, is that it shall display an independence from gross manipulation and shall seem to be just.… Thus it may be that a particular interpretation of the law will not be taken, because it obviously favours a particular class interest, or is inconsistent with a stated ideological justification for a given course of action. It may be that in instances where such an interpretation is put forward, progressive social forces are able to seize on such inconsistency and mount an immanent critique of the interpretation. In response to such action, or in order to avoid it, forcemay ‘decide’ in a manner consistent with the wishes of progressive forces.
The Dangers of the Form of International Law for the Radical Left
The above characterization of the possibility of using international law for socialist ends needs to be severely qualified when we consider the form of law, including international law. The form of law itself influences the content of law, or what it is. Law is both too abstract and too specific. In relation to being too abstract, Knox has this to say. Page 430:
The problems with which progressives are confronted – poverty, war, disease – do not simply just ‘happen’, they are manifestations of ‘background’, structural factors – be they political, economic, or ideological; ‘“moment[s]” in a larger structure of meaning that can be known, analyzed, and potentially defeated’. But legal argument is both too abstract and at the same time too specific to deal effectively with these problems. Legal argument frames its participants as abstract, self-contained individuals; as such it treats their actions, rather than the reasons for these actions, as decisive. Moreover, these actions become relevant only inasmuch as they form the content of a dispute or violation of the law. Legal argument therefore resolves the particular disputes of abstract individuals without ever touching on the logics which shape and condition their actions, and in this sense it is too abstract.
Law is also too specific in that its form of resolving problems often limits its applicability to very specific disputes. Page 430-431:
Although legal argument may be able to deal with effects, it proves incapable of dealing with causes; this is where legal argument proves too specific. Legal argument resolves specific ‘violations’, ‘disputes’, or ‘instances’, but it never questions the general structural logics that lurk beneath them, and so cannot fully eradicate the problems it addresses. This is not to say that those who adopt legal argument are unaware of the systemic logics that underlie particular actions, simply that in adopting a legal strategy they act as if they were unaware of such logics and so cannot address them.
By Way of Conclusion: What Is To Be Done?
Knox proposes a solution to this problem of the possible incorporation of struggles around international law in terms of content into the legal form, thereby limiting such struggles to the existing economic, political and social structures rather than going beyond them: principled opportunism. Page 433:
3.1.1. Conclusion: principled opportunism
The above analysis suggests a two-pronged strategy for the progressive use of international law. Thec ontent of international law is contestable byprogressive non-state
actors. Utilizing their economic, ideological, and sometimes coercive power these
groupsmay be able to turn the content of international law to their own ends, either
by constituting themselves as formal actors in the international sphere or by forcing
particular states to adopt an interpretation that favours their interests. …However, the transformative power of this struggle is limited by the legal form. By virtue of the ‘shape’ of this form, legal strategy cannot address the social structures that give rise to the world’s problems. This indicates that the best route for international lawyers is to engage in ‘concrete forms of political commitment’, abandoning any utopian hopes of the law’s role in social transformation. International law might be used ‘defensively’ – perhaps invoking it in a national trial to defend otherwise criminal actions. Equally, it could be used offensively, for example in attempting to secure the trial of war criminals, which would also help to publicize the ‘truth’ of a particular situation.
Knox warns that there are risks of such a strategy, and radical leftists need to be aware of them. Page 433:
Even with such amodest strategy there are real risks. The shape of the legal form means that pursuing a legal strategy can break up collective solidarity, and renders progressive forces unable to address the systemic causes of social problems. Indeed, to mount a legal strategy is to risk legitimating the structures of global capitalism. Thus what needs to be articulated is a strategy which is able to take advantage of the possible progressive content of the law, whilst avoiding the problems of the legal form. International law, then, must never be pursued because it ‘is law’, but only insofar as its content can advance the aims of progressive constituencies. What must be pursued is a ‘principled opportunism’, where – in order to undercut the individualizing, legitimating perspective of law – international law is consciously used as amere tool, to be discarded when not useful. …
The strategic question of international law’s progressive potential is – as a matter of
principle – reduced to the tactical, instrumental deployment of legal argument.
Principled opportunism may, under specific conditions, give way to a greater focus and importance to law and legal argument, but unlike the idealization of international law characteristic of social democrats and social reformists, principled opportunism should be the default line for radical leftists. Page 435:
Of course, this brings with it its own problems, as, rather than consciously avoiding the legal character of a demand, it seeks to embrace it. What this suggests is a two-track strategy, where in normal circumstances ‘principled opportunism’ is pursued but in extraordinary circumstances ‘legality’ once again becomes important. Even in these extraordinary circumstances there would always be a ‘conscious’ element, those who have engaged in principled opportunism, who remain ‘aware’ of the limits of legality.
The Abolitionary 