Tag Archives: international law

The defence of International Law in an age of impunity

In October 2026, the United States imposed sweeping sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), the latest escalation in its campaign to undermine and “dismantle” the Court. The US objects to the ICC investigating or prosecuting American nationals and has also opposed its investigation into senior Israeli officials over war crimes in Gaza. The sanctions are troubling not only because they threaten the Court’s ability to operate independently, but because they expose a deeper question: does international law apply to everyone, or only to those without power? 

International law has never been free from hypocrisy. Great powers have often defended global rules while exempting themselves from them. Critics are right to point to double standards, selective enforcement and the influence of geopolitics. Yet these failures do not invalidate international law. They demonstrate why it is needed.

The modern international legal order emerged from the catastrophe of two world wars. Its foundation was a simple but transformative idea: that power alone should not determine what states may do and that even leaders can be held accountable for their actions.

The Nuremberg Trials established that principle. Sovereignty could no longer serve as a shield against responsibility. Political leaders, military commanders and officials could be judged for crimes committed in the name of the state. No one, in principle, stood above the law.

That achievement is now under threat.

Too many governments support international law only when it targets their enemies. Courts are praised when they investigate rivals and attacked when they scrutinise allies. Human rights are defended selectively. Legal principles are embraced when convenient and dismissed when politically costly.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 6 Comments

Picking our allies, a perspective on Israel/Palestine

There’s been a lot of noise recently about applying international law. What exactly does this mean? Statutes on human rights were formalised as international law following the atrocities committed during the Holocaust in which at least twelve million were killed, six million of them Jews.

But over the years these laws have seemingly been applied indiscriminately with Western powers left off the hook time and again. Questions around British and American actions in places like Iraq linger, but in recent years the heat has been turned up. Israel, traditional ally to many Western powers, has been the subject of case after case brought to the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice. Judgements to date include a decision that Israeli occupation of the West Bank is illegal under international law, and Israel has been warned that accusations of genocide in Gaza are plausible and the ICC is adjudicating this case.

As Israel’s allies defend the actions of the Israeli government, international law is again being scrutinised. What’s it for? I’d have hoped that would be obvious – it’s designed to prevent world atrocities and to adjudicate a world in  which we can all thrive, but this only works if everybody and every country are held to the same standards and here lies the problem. Rather than admit wrongdoing, countries like the US and Israel are doing their best to undermine the validity of international law by decrying the international courts. Shocking when you consider that the US led in creating statutes on human rights because of what had happened to victims of the Nazi regime, many of whom migrated to Palestine then Israel.

So as a Jew, descended from 1200+ years of famous Rabbis and Jewish community leaders, including a number of Britain’s earliest chief rabbis, I was particularly driven to find out how we have arrived at this juncture. Pew Research did a poll in Spring 2024 which revealed that 73% of Jewish Israelis felt Israel’s response to October 7th was proportionate or not strong enough. By then tens of thousands of Gazan civilians had died. As a Jew and a filmmaker I wanted to find out where this popular opinion had come from. I went to Israel to film with the hypothesis that the results of this poll were a combination of unresolved Jewish trauma, and current-day Israeli politics. What I found gave me sleepless nights.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 11 Comments

Accountability and international law

Israel’s increasingly brazen conduct in Lebanon and the wider region should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. A government that has faced few meaningful consequences for its conduct in Gaza was never likely to become more restrained elsewhere.  

From repeatedly violating US-brokered ceasefires to advancing the ‘doomsday’ E1 settlement project despite near-universal international opposition, recent Israeli actions all point to the same conclusion: its leaders have become convinced they can violate international law with impunity. The uncomfortable truth is that, to a large extent, the international community has taught them exactly that. 

For two and a half years, Israel’s systematic bombardment and starvation of Gaza’s civilian population has met with little more than handwringing from the UK and its allies.

International courts have repeatedly sounded the alarm. In January 2024, the International Court of Justice found that there was a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza and ordered Israel to undertake provisional measures to prevent genocide – none of which were implemented.

The ruling triggered binding obligations on third states under the Genocide Convention to take active steps to prevent genocide and ensure accountability for those responsible. 

Yet many western governments responded with little more than expressions of concern. Instead of meaningful pressure, there were statements. Instead of consequences, there were warnings. Instead of enforcement, there was handwringing. As the Lib Dems declared in September 2025 genocide has clearly been taking place.  Sadly it continues.

The same pattern was evident when the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Yoav Minister Gallant, alongside a Hamas commander, for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Rather than welcoming the arrest warrants, as when Vladamir Putin was indicted, the UK’s then Conservative government refused to say whether it would arrest Netanyahu if he visited the UK. Subsequent reports indicate that then Foreign Secretary David Cameron even threatened to defund the court after learning of its intention to seek the indictments.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 7 Comments

International law is broken

This week’s reports of Iranian security forces machine-gunning down scores of unarmed protestors, apparently including children and teenagers must surely strike a chill in the heart of any liberal.  How can this be allowed to happen in the 21st Century? Meanwhile, the US military action in Venezuela has attracted widespread condemnation as a breach of International Law, despite Maduro’s Government being widely recognised as authoritarian and morally illegitimate.

In moral terms, the Iranian regime is little different from a bunch of criminal thugs with guns, killing whomever they please. But in International Law, they are the legitimate Government (largely by virtue of, they are the ones who managed to seize control in the country), and therefore international law sides with the thugs, not with the people being killed.  Just as on the other side of the World in Venezuela, International law condemns the removal of a dictator who has driven a quarter of his own people into exile as refugees!

Why is this? Well, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter enshrines a near-absolute prohibition on the use of force, subject only to self-defence or Security Council authorisation, which is next to impossible to achieve under the veto system. It’s written that way because it’s designed to stop tanks crossing borders: to prevent wars between nations, reflecting the concerns of the 1940s, rather than to protect people from trigger-happy governments. The unfortunate upshot is that when a state massacres its own citizens, international law permits other states to do little more than investigate or condemn. And mere condemnation is impotence if the law does not permit any action that might actually be effective in protecting the people being massacred.

Worse still, the Security Council veto system is no accident. It was deliberately designed to give a handful of powerful states permanent control over when international law is enforced, thereby protecting the interests of those states.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 6 Comments

7 January 2026 – today’s press releases

  • Lib Dems blast Reform Mayoral Launch for “talking down” London
  • Govt must state if US military seizure of oil tanker was legal under international law
  • ScotRail disruption payments top £3 million
  • Greene responds to watchdog warning on waiting times
  • Welsh Lib Dems raise ongoing red tape hitting Welsh lamb
  • Greene: Pause business rates revaluation

Lib Dems blast Reform Mayoral Launch for “talking down” London

Responding to a Reform UK press conference, announcing Laila Cunningham as their mayoral candidate, Lib Dem London Spokesperson Luke Taylor MP said:

From its history to its culture to its people, London is the greatest city in the world but all Reform seem to do is talk it down.

Cunningham and Farage care more about sowing division than they do about solving the actual problems that Londoners face.

The Liberal Democrats will stand up for the millions of Londoners who love this city and its values and ensure London is a better place for everyone.

Govt must state if US military seizure of oil tanker was legal under international law

Responding to the US’s seizure of a Russian-flagged oil tanker in the Atlantic, Calum Miller MP, Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, said:

The Russian shadow fleet is busting oil sanctions for Russia and allies like Iran. It helps Putin sustain his brutal war on Ukraine. We support measures that stop the illicit flow of oil that powers sanctioned regimes.

But this is another example where Donald Trump’s illegal action in Venezuela has undermined steps to uphold international law.

The use of US air bases in the UK to launch this operation places a particular obligation on the Government to show that we are committed to acting lawfully. So the Government needs to state whether this military intervention is legal and who is now responsible for the vessel.

ScotRail disruption payments top £3 million

Scottish Liberal Democrat transport spokesperson Jamie Greene has today revealed that since the nationalisation of the ScotRail franchise the service has paid out more than £3m in payments to passengers whose trains have been cancelled or delayed.

Passengers whose trains are delayed by more than half an hour can make delay repay claims.

Figures for delay repay payments are typically published by ScotRail with a six-month lag, however figures acquired by Scottish Liberal Democrats reveal that between April 2022, when the service returned to public ownership, and the end of October 2025:

  • £3,089,106.54 was paid to passengers for late trains.
  • There have been 262,747 claims for delay repay in that time, with 178,446 of those being approved and paid out.
  • This means that the average pay-out for delay repay in that time has been £17.32.

Scottish Liberal Democrat transport spokesperson Jamie Greene MSP said:

This is an eye-watering, multi-million-pound bill for delayed trains.

The SNP have been directly responsible for the trains for three and a half years, but these figures point to a serious level of disruption that will be frustrating for commuters, holidaymakers and taxpayers.

Since this figure only covers those who have applied for a refund, there may be many more people who have been similarly inconvenienced but who simply haven’t claimed.

With people across the country struggling to make ends meet, these payments need to be brought under control. That’s also how we create a more efficient service that will help encourage people out of private cars.

Passengers and commuters deserve better. Wherever you are, by backing the Scottish Liberal Democrats on your peach regional ballot next May, you can vote for a public transport that works for all communities, ages and for the planet. We would achieve that with new options for two/three-day-a-week season tickets and by working with councils to explore new lines, especially in areas where public transport links are poor.

Posted in News, Press releases, Scotland and Wales | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , and | 5 Comments

5 January 2026 – today’s press releases

  • Lib Dems demand release of Venezuela legal advice as Starmer again refuses to say whether Trump breached international law
  • Cole-Hamilton: Scotland deserves better than old divisions
  • Cole-Hamilton responds to World Cup bank holiday
  • Lib Dems raise alarm after Conservative Shadow Minister hints they would cut free bus passes for over-60s in Wales

Lib Dems demand release of Venezuela legal advice as Starmer again refuses to say whether Trump breached international law

The Lib Dems are calling on the Government to publish any legal advice it has received on breaches of international law by the United States in its strikes on Venezuela and kidnapping of Nicolas …

Posted in News, Press releases, Scotland and Wales | Also tagged , , , and | 1 Comment
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Peter Davies
    "The Greens’ major objective is to preserve the planet as a liveable space for humanity." I'm not convinced that is still in their top three....
  • Peter Wrigley
    I think it helps to look at the parties in terms of their major objective, or usp if you prefer. The Liberal Democrats' major objective is to preserve, prote...
  • James Hill
    @David Allen There is 0% chance that the result of the next election is a Tory-Lib Dem coalition. And the tax cut proposed by Ed has also been proposed by the t...
  • James Hill
    @Rob Heale The problem with VAT, is generally when rates are lowered, the savings are not passed on to consumers and instead pad out profit margins. This has me...
  • James Hill
    @Peter Davies I agree, I think higher rates of pension credit should be looked at – would be a much more effective, targeted and cheaper way to reduce pension...