Talk:Ariel Sharon and Library of Congress Classification:Class J -- Political science: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
reply to Joseph |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This article outlines the subclasses of Class J. |
|||
: (Belgium courts have the power, under both Belgian and international law, to try war crimes committed anywhere in the world.) Ariel Sharon cancelled an official visit to Belgium in early 2001, which many said was because he feared being arrested, although the official reason given was the bombing of a disco in Israel. |
|||
:J -- General [[legislative papers|legislative]] and [[executive papers]] |
|||
Ariel Sharon, as an acting representative of a foreign government, is protected by international law. Therefore he could not be arrested in Belgium, or any other country that upholds the Vienna Convention of 1815. His visit was canceled as a sign of diplomatic protest, which is certainly in place. Also, Belgium is no "courthouse for the world", since most legal conventions disallow persecution by a country over crimes that happened in a foreign nation (and that did not involve any citizens of that country). Also, is not having a disco bombed with 21 murdered children a bad cause? I delete this. --[[:Uriyan|Uriyan]] |
|||
:JA-- [[Political science]] (General) |
|||
----- |
|||
:JC-- [[Political theory]] |
|||
"Ariel Sharon, as an acting representative of a foreign government, is protected by international law." That is a question of some dispute -- Belgium argues that while government representatives can't be arrested for ordinary crimes, they can be arrested for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, etc. The Vienna Convention of 1815? Don't you mean the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which dates from some time in the 60s I think. War crimes are crimes of universal jurisdiction under international law, thus any state in the world has the right to try war crimes cases, not just cases involving its own citizens or territory. (Also, legal jurisdiction is determined by customary international law, not by conventional international law.) Most states don't take advantage of this right they have, but Belgium does. Israel also does, that is how they tried Eichmann (the Holocaust did not occur on Israeli territory, and none of its victims here Israeli citizens at the time it occured, since Israel did not then exist.) And the last sentence is completely true: he cancelled the visit, many people said it was because he feared being arrested, but the official Israeli government reason was the bombing of a disco. Everything in that sentence is true, and I don't see what your problem is with it. -- [[:SJK|SJK]] |
|||
:JF-- [[Political institution]]s and [[public administration]] - General |
|||
----- |
|||
:JK-- Political institutions and public administration - United States |
|||
Well, Belgium can claim whatever it wants, but it is ''Belgian'' law, not international. Also, again, while I am not thoroughly familiar with the current legalities, all the cases of war crimes that I know of were ever put on trial, were put on trial in an ''international'' court, not a Belgian court. The only contrary case happened in Belgium several years ago, but again, that's Belgium and its view on the problem. |
|||
:JL-- Political institutions and public administration - Canada, West Indies, Mexico, Central and South America |
|||
:JN-- Political institutions and public administration - Europe |
|||
As to the Eichmann trial, please note the following difference: Sharon's action took place Israel, which is a souverign country recognized by Belgium, and which exists now. Eichmann was an official of Nazi Germany, which was dissolved, and therefore unable to try him (he could be tried in Western Germany, but it was only the ''heir'' of Nazi Germany). Sharon could, theoretically, be taken to an Israeli court. I'm sure that much more significant differences exist, but unfortunately I'm not yet familiar enough with the international law to put up a better answer. I meant the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, which was based on practice that originated in the Vienna Congress of 1815 (I apologize for my ignorance). |
|||
:JQ-- Political institutions and public administration - Asia, Arab countries, Islamic countries, Africa, Atlantic Ocean Islands, Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Ocean Islands |
|||
:JS-- [[Local government]]. [[Municipal government]] |
|||
In addition to the above: although I hate to go ''ad hominem'', I must say that you eagerness to mention Sabra and Shatila without doing any further research on the problem (like reading Kahan's report, which is freely available on the Internet) is regrettable and indicates that your bias is stronger than your desire to be objective. It is you and your decisions; however wouldn't you feel better if you didn't omit details another side in this conflict might consider important? --[[:Uriyan|Uriyan]] |
|||
:JV-- [[Colony|colonies]] and [[colonization]], [[Emigration]] and [[Immigration]]. [[International migration]] |
|||
---- |
|||
:JX-- International law, (obsolete sub-class) see [[Library of Congress Classification/Class K -- Law|KZ]] |
|||
I don't think international law protects anybody. Each state, being sovereign, does whatever it wants. It is customary to ''grant'' diplomatic immunity to individuals or classes of individuals. |
|||
:JZ-- [[International relations]] |
|||
The question Uriyan and SJK are discussing, needs clarification as to how Belgium would regard Sharon during a visit: |
|||
#It would grant him diplomatic immunity. |
|||
#It would refuse to grant him diplomatic immunity and seek to arrest him. |
|||
[[:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] |
|||
---- |
|||
Its more than Belgian law, its what Belgian claims the international law on the matter is (whether or not Belgian is right ultimately depends on future state practice, court decisions, etc.). |
|||
As to jurisdiction: there are about five different basises for jurisdiction recognized under international law: territorial jurisdiction (crimes committed on territory of the state), nationality jurisdiction (crime committed by a national of the state), jurisdiction based on the vital interests of the state (forget what this one is called), jurisdiction based on the nationality of the victim (once widely rejected, but increasingly accepted for terrorist offences), and universal jurisdiction (any state in the world can try the crime, no matter where it was committed and by who). Universal jurisdiction however only applies to certain offenses (e.g. piracy, genocide), so the question would be whether or not universal jurisdiction applies to whatever they would might indict Sharon for. And the primary jurisdiction under international criminal law rests with national courts, not international courts; international courts can only exercise criminal jurisdiction over individuals when a state has delegated its own jurisdiction to that court, and an international court can have no more criminal jurisdiction than the states that made the delegation did. |
|||
This is all well established customary international law, and is accepted by just about everybody. Just because the law on this matter may only be rarely applied doesn't mean it does not exist. (If you want a nice summary of all this, get a textbook on international law.) |
|||
Secondly, the distinction you make between the Eichmann case and what Belgium claims the right to do is irrelevant. The exercise of universal jursidiction under international law is not dependent on whether or not it is possible for the territorial state or the state of nationality to try it. Of course, if the territorial or nationality state (i.e. either Lebanon or Israel) is willing and able to try Sharon, then it has the right to do so instead of Belgium. But if either is unwilling or unable to do so for whatever reason, then (presuming universal jurisdiction applies to what Belgium indicts Sharon for), Belgium has the right to try him. The only possible difference is the question of whether or not what they seek to charge Sharon with is subject to universal jurisdiction. (Genocide, with which Israel charged Eichmann, |
|||
I was not aware that Kahan's report was available on the Internet (I knew there was an Israeli government inquiry, but I didn't know Kahan chaired it). Most of the information was what I remembered from news reports. I hope I was not overly biased. I will openly admit I really don't like Sharon, but I'm trying to be as neutral and unbiased as I can. (Look, I even went to the trouble of including a summary of his political career from gleaned the Israeli government; if all I wanted to do was attack him, why should have I bothered?) -- [[:SJK|SJK]] |
|||
:I thank you for this basic introduction, I will definitely look up international law references. Your original version was quite biased (to my Israeli taste). I tried to NPOV-ise it a bit (include both our opinions on fatality count, terrorism etc). You also did a similar thing to [[:Menachem Begin|Menachem Begin]] (writing he was a terrorist without ever mentioning the [[:Nobel Peace Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]] - certainly, you'd mention it the latter if you wrote about Arafat!). However, I understand that total lack of bias is a hard goal (and it's diffcult for me to approach it two - and I'm sorry if I was in a flaming mood for a while). --[[:Uriyan|Uriyan]] |
|||
Okay, I admit I was trying to stir people a little bit with the article on Begin, by calling him a terrorist. If I was biased with my original account of Sabra and Shetila, thats probably because a lot of the sources I use for news are probably biased from your point of view. And why didn't I mention the Nobel prize? because I'd forgotten it, thats why. -- [[:SJK|SJK]] |
|||
------ |
|||
Ed: "Each state, being sovereign, does whatever it wants" is not correct. State soverignity is subject to international law, most importantly the principle of pacta sunt servanda (i.e. states must abide by treaties they freely enter into) to, and the jus cogens/erga omnes rules of customary international law (i.e. rules like the prohibition of genocide, which no state is permitted to violate.) Since most states have signed lots of treaties, and they are bound by customary international law anyway, their soverignity is limited in quite a few ways. Also, be careful about your use of the word "custom" -- you seem to be using it to imply that its not legally required that they grant diplomatic immunity, its merely a custom -- but customs are legally binding under international law, provided they meet certain conditions (states in following the custom must feel a sense of legal obligation; newly established customs may not apply to persistent objectors to them). -- [[:SJK|SJK]] |
|||
Simon, |
|||
#the article on [[:international law|international law]] says, "International legal norms can be customary or conventional." |
|||
#I don't really care if he's a war criminal or not. Just say what he did (and who says he did it). Then say why that's a crime (and who says it's a crime). [[:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] |
|||
:Yes, the article on international law says that (I think I may even be the person who wrote that sentence). I'm just trying to make sure you understand what customary international law is, because the way you said it made me suspect you didn't. -- [[:SJK|SJK]] |
|||
------- |
|||
Article said: |
|||
:Some claim that this suit is illegal, because trial of non-citizens for crimes supposedly comitted to non-citizens is not widely accepted in [[:international law|international law]]. However others disagree, and claim that states have the right under international law to try war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, even when the crime did not involve their nationals and did not occur on their territory, since these crimes are recognized as being subject to universal jurisdiction. (Israel made use of the same right as Belgium when it tried and convicted Adolf Eichmann for his involvement in the Holocaust, even though neither he nor any of his victims were Israeli nationals at the time, and the crime was not committed on Israeli territory.) |
|||
Some may claim that, but no international lawyer would claim that. They might claim it was illegal, but if they did it would be because what Sharon did was not an offense subject to universal jurisdiction, or because of head of government immunity during office, or something like that. Universal jurisdiction for at least some offences is accepted by everybody. I've got no problem with admitting this is a subject of legal dispute, I'm just asking that the dispute be framed correctly. -- [[:SJK|SJK]] |
|||
------- |
|||
SJK, do you think you could include some of what you have written on this page in the page on [[:international law|international law]]? I'd do it myself if i weren't certain to bungle it :-) --Anders Törlind |
|||
---------- |
|||
''removed Palestinian propaganda'' |
|||
== Opposing Views on Ariel Sharon == |
|||
Ariel Sharon has always been an evil, evil man... |
|||
He has been known (variously) as "the butcher" in Gaza, Lebanon, and other locals... |
|||
All of his policies are the same, Killing, Murder, Assassinations, whole scale slaughter, etc... |
|||
His advocacy of illegal settlement building in the occupied territories, can only be seen as a further step away from peace. |
|||
Just remember no matter what anyone says, this latest round of violence the, so-called 'second Intifada' (BTW: no resemblance to the first) started because of Sharon and the thousand bodyguards in sacred Arab East Jerusalem. |
|||
Sharon lacks a political agenda. He is a general and war operations are at the limit of his expertise. As an Israeli political analyst put it: "Sharon sees the many trees, but can never see the forest." The absence of a peace camp in Israel has played into Sharon's favour but lately the Israeli public is wondering why they elected a closed-minded general with no political vision as their prime minister? Sharon is an obstacle to peace for he is the new variable in the Middle East peace equation. Occupation is the cancer and until it is done away with there will be no peace. |
|||
Sharon has aggressively worked against the Palestinians in their own land. His predecessors at least genuinely tried for peace and as such helped defuse tensions to a large extent. But Sharon has pursued dirty politics and extreme aggression against the Palestinians, so much so that reservists from his own Army are calling quits. It is a year since this man came to power, and see where he has brought the Middle East conflict, and to some extent, the entire world. Undoubtedly his authoritarian military background overshadows all peace efforts. And his brutal policies against the Palestinians throw the chances of peace 'out of the window'. |
|||
Mr Sharon has no intention of peaceful relations with the Palestinians. His arrogance has inflamed the entire region, set peace prospects back years, and is beginning to result in demoralization in the Israeli military as well. |
|||
: To Joseph (who has obviously written this). Wikipedia is not for saying 'evil, evil man'. We don't even say it here about [[Adolph Hitler]]. His nicknames among his haters are also irrelevant. You also don't make statements without any grounds or evidence. If you want this material to ever get to [[Ariel Sharon]], you'd better rewrite it starting with "Palestinians think that" ... Append the heading about "Opposing Views" to the end of the article. [[user:Uriyan|Uriyan]] |
|||
---------- |
|||
Joseph, I appreciate the moderation that you've done, but this is still not NPOV! As the Wikipedia editor, you don't have a narrator. Unless you talk about very, very obvious facts, the statements that you make must be explicitly associated with the side that makes them. I'll post below the way I think the statements should be made: |
|||
: Ariel Sharon has followed a military solutions based policy of no negotiations under fire. He refuses to engage in political negotiations until there is a seven day period of absolute peace and quiet in all of Israel and the occupied territories. Many people and some governments (mainly the European Union members) feel that this is an unrealistic demand, that could never be fulfilled. |
|||
URI: with all due respect, please, lets try and not mince words here, it is Ariel Sharon's policy. He is the one that will not negotiate under fire, he said so... Furthermore, he has forbidden specific members of the Government from pursuing dialogue with Palestinians (personally a method I feel will result in lowering the violence). He is the Prime Minister now, whether we (Palestinians) like it or not. Feel free to reword this how you see fit as long as the main point remains it is this that: |
|||
==== |
|||
1) Mr Sharon's policy is one of extreme military responses to any attack, by any Palestinian group. That essentialy means that any extreme person can derail any peace talk. Imagine if that was how it was with extreme Jewsih settler groups doing the same, and the Palestinians refusing to negotiate. At least try to see my point here. |
|||
2) The European Union wants to change this policy, and it asks that Mr Sharon and his government stop this policy, as it is unrealistic. |
|||
============================================================================= |
|||
(''Sharon is not Israeli government - Sharon himself is a private individual while the government is an official body. Also note that both the government and the majority of the Israeli public support these policies, as recent polls indicate'') |
|||
: Palestinians claim that all of the current policies followed by the Sharon government so far have failed to bring about this prerequisite for peace. They claim that the policies carried out by his government - assassinations of leaders of Palestinian groups (some of whom being terrorists is disputed), blockades of whole areas (including towns and villages), the destruction of Palestinian Authority infrastructure as well as civillian infrastructure (including police and security buildings), continued house demolitions, Israeli Army incursions into Palestinian territory, the confinement of the nominal head of the Palestinian people in his headquarters that essentially amounts to a house arrest - have only created further difficuly in calming the situation down . |
|||
=== |
|||
Uri, again, I feel that this point above is important, as these policies, started by Barak, continued to an even greater extent by Mr Sharon and his government, only lead to more violence and destruction. I hate it when there is a Palestinian attack on civillians or innocents, I feel that if these extremist groups want to go at it with the Israeli Army, then go one for one against the military only. It pains me, and I am truly sorry for the agony, grief, and loss of life of innocent civillians. Truly, the situation is such that more and more ordinary Palestinians are getting drawn into an ever more destructive spiral of violence. |
|||
============================================================================= |
|||
: Palestinians consider Sharon's advocacy of [[Israeli settlements|settlement]] building in the occupied territories as a further step away from peace. |
|||
No change here, settlements like it or not are the main reasons for this problem, every expansion and building of new settlements create more 'Facts on the ground' to quote an already overused term. |
|||
============================================================================= |
|||
: The latest round of violence the, so-called 'second Intifada' started in the Fall of 2000. Palestinians claim that it was started because of Ariel Sharon, and over a thousand bodyguards marching in sacred Arab East Jerusalem. (A number of protesting Palestinians were killed in the immediate aftermath of this visit. ''never heard of that'') Some commentators have accused him of purposely starting this event, to prevent the further continuation of peace talks. |
|||
(''Actually, one of Arafat's advisors claim otherwise, see [http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf19a.html#a here]'') |
|||
=== |
|||
I know that the link you provided is hardly unbiased, I have never heard of this man, most news stories from that time, indicate otherwise, here is a link: |
|||
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/12/08/mideast.03/index.html |
|||
here is a quote from that article: ..."The Jerusalem clash was one of the most intense since fighting began on September 28, when Palestinians leaving al-Aqsa after prayers began throwing stones at Israeli security forces. Four Palestinians were killed in the ensuing fighting." ... |
|||
============================================================================= |
|||
: Furthermore, Palestinians claim that Sharon really lacks a political agenda. He is a general and war operations are at the limit of his expertise. An Israeli political analyst claimed: "Sharon sees the many trees, but can never see the forest". |
|||
('' That's a personal opinion, I'd leave it out as well'') |
|||
: The absence of a peace camp in Israel has played into Sharon's favour but lately the Israeli public is wondering why they elected a closed-minded general with no political vision as their prime minister? Sharon is an obstacle to peace for he is the new variable in the Middle East peace equation. Occupation is the cancer and until it is done away with there will be no peace. |
|||
=== |
|||
If you really insist, altough I liked the paragraph the way it was... |
|||
============================================================================= |
|||
: Palestinians claim that Sharon works agressively against the Palestinians in their own land, and that while his predecessors at least genuinely tried for peace and as such helped defuse tensions to a large extent, Sharon has pursued dirty politics and extreme aggression against the Palestinians. |
|||
'' That's a gross generalization, the letter has been signed by 50 soldiers and officers, out of the several hundred thousand reservists. '' |
|||
Sorry Uri, I mean to say that the way it is, my accounts showed over 100 and something have refused ,but perhaps you know better being there in Israel. |
|||
Here are my links: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-020202army.story |
|||
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/mideast020208_reservists.html |
|||
Here is one of the quotes: ... "The petition started with 50 reserve officers and soldiers. Since it appeared in Israeli newspapers two weeks ago, about another 150 have signed it." ... |
|||
: so much so, that reservists from his own Army are calling it quits. |
|||
Please leave this here, or expand on it: This represents a small number compared to the Thousands serving ... (or something like that). |
|||
============================================================================= |
|||
'' Repeat of your previous points, I'd leave this out '' |
|||
: It has been a year since this man came to power, and most people can see where he has brought the Middle East conflict, and to some extent, the entire world, close than ever to a regional war. Undoubtedly his authoritarian military background overshadows all peace efforts. His brutal policies against the Palestinians make the chances of peace very slim, even non-existent. |
|||
: It seems to most Palestinians, peace groups (specifically [[Peace Now]]), and foreign peoples and governments, that Mr Sharon has no intention of peaceful relations with the Palestinians. |
|||
Please address/update these points in the main article (or tell me if I can update it myself). --[[user:Uriyan|Uriyan]] |
|||
Uri, I am not sure what you want to change here, however, my sources indicate this feeling. |
|||
Here is the link: |
|||
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,201552,00.html |
|||
Here is the quote: "Sharon's impressive diplomatic achievements haven't erased the basic fact haunting Israelis: His first year in office has failed to produce the security promised in his election campaign. A poll published by the newspaper Maariv a week ago showed that Sharon's domestic approval rating had fallen below 50 percent for the first time since his landslide victory. Clearly, Israel's grinding economic recession and the absence of any signs of progress towards resolving its conflict with the Palestinians are taking its toll on domestic politics." |
|||
Uri, I am willing to have you change my comments to an NPOV, I am not sure how to do it, however, please do not change my meaning or content. I have provided comments above, I hope that this clarifies my points... I only want to point out that the awy Mr Sharon wants Peace to be, it will never happen. He may have Mr Bush on side, he may even win over the Israelis in an another election, however, Peace has to be made with us the Palestinians, not Mr Bush, or the Israelis themselves... |
|||
Hoping I have not offended, or made unreasonable requests. |
|||
Joseph |
|||
---------- |
|||
Hi, |
|||
I edited your comments on the main page a bit, most of the changes being confined to adding "Palestinians think that...". The comments that I made in ''italics'' are not editorial, but my personal comments as an Israeli. Anyway, if you don't like something (if you think that I left out something important etc.) - feel free to restore it (either from this page or from history). |
|||
I deleted the line about four Palestinians being killed, because it happened after Sharon's visit, and during very heavy riots that these Palestinians were taking part in. So if we wanted to present the full picture we'd then have to discuss whether the violence that the protesters applied was extreme (e.g. they burnt a police station about the same time) and branch into a whole new discussion which is not directly related to Ariel Sharon. |
|||
Finally, I'd been thinking to write an opposing Israeli opinion about this (and perhaps even add one to [[Yasser Arafat]]). Of course, you (or any other Wikipedian) would be able to edit my comments in a similar way. --[[user:Uriyan|Uriyan]] |
|||
Revision as of 21:37, 18 February 2002
This article outlines the subclasses of Class J.
- J -- General legislative and executive papers
- JA-- Political science (General)
- JC-- Political theory
- JF-- Political institutions and public administration - General
- JK-- Political institutions and public administration - United States
- JL-- Political institutions and public administration - Canada, West Indies, Mexico, Central and South America
- JN-- Political institutions and public administration - Europe
- JQ-- Political institutions and public administration - Asia, Arab countries, Islamic countries, Africa, Atlantic Ocean Islands, Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Ocean Islands
- JS-- Local government. Municipal government
- JV-- colonies and colonization, Emigration and Immigration. International migration
- JX-- International law, (obsolete sub-class) see KZ
- JZ-- International relations