Justice for Palestine: International Law and Beyond

​The Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs, in collaboration with the Public Policy and International Affairs Program at the Department of Political Studies and Public Administration , hosted a panel discussion titled: "Justice for Palestine: International Law and Beyond," on Wednesday, March 6, 2024. The panel included Karim Makdisi, Associate Professor of International Politics and Director of the PPIA Program at AUB; Nimer Sultany, Reader in Public Law at the School of Law, Gender, and Media - School of Oriental and African Studies; Samer Ghamroun, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law and Political Science - Saint-Joseph University and a Senior Researcher at Legal Agenda; and Zeina Jallad, a Research Fellow at the Institute for Global Law and Policy - Harvard Law School. The panel was convened and moderated by Jamil Mouawad, Assistant Professor of Politics and Policy at AUB.

Jamil Mouawad emphasized the centrality of law both international and domestic, in seeking justice for Palestinians amidst ongoing violence and oppression. His remarks highlighted how the international legal system, despite its historical shortcomings and perceived biases towards Western interests, still offers avenues for accountability and justice. Examples cited include South Africa's case against Israel at the International Court of Justice and ongoing International Criminal Court Palestine investigation, among many others. Mouawad added that the panel aims to address two main overarching questions: the promise of international law and its limits in delivering justice for Palestine and the possibility of reappropriating the law to challenge Western hegemony, hold perpetrators accountable and end impunity. He stressed on the active roles of the panelists who are engaged not only in scholarly discussions but also public debates and legal advocacy, emphasizing their importance of making the law accessible to the public and using it as a tool for political struggle in support of Palestine.

Karim Makdisi discussed "Global Palestine and International Order." He began by acknowledging the suffering in Gaza and Palestine and emphasized the importance of understanding their struggles within a human context. Makdisi argued that the current events in Gaza represent a reemergence of "global Palestine" in world politics, a persistent idea and struggle for Palestinian rights and dignity. He contextualized this within the conflict between a universal system of international law, rooted in the UN charter, and a US-dominated "rules-based order," which the South African scholar John Dugard notes comprises undefined and non-universal tacit rules employed by the West, particularly the US, to ensure its dominance and protects Israel. . This struggle, according to Makdisi, reflects historical anticolonial liberation movements, where Palestine held a central role. He criticized the Oslo Accords for replacing the idea of self-determination with self-rule shorn of international law, and for localizing the Palestinian issue, ultimately serving the interests of powerful actors. Makdisi argued that the Abraham Accords aim to further marginalize Palestine from global politics, emphasizing the importance of reclaiming the discourse of liberation and self-determination. He stressed the need for Palestinian unity and a return to structures to advance the struggle for justice and dignity. He concluded that the struggle over Global Palestine has exposed the rules-based world order and argued that we now see an alternative global politics centered once again on claims of universalized international law that requires unity and collective action.

Nimer Sultany, discussed how Palestine serves as a litmus test for international law because it exposes it universalist and inclusive pretensions. A proper understanding the the role of law requires challenging the notion that law is separate from politics, and understanding law as a field of political contestation. He argued that legal discourse often overlooks the political context and power dynamics at play. Sultany emphasized the need for a critical approach to the law, highlighting its potential to either reinforce or challenge power asymmetries. In particular, the agenda of ‘enforcing international law’ overlooks legal resolutions that unjustly treated the Palestinians. In this context, he also argued that the ICJ ruling on genocide is a momentous ruling that can be capitalized on politically and legally for anti-war mobilization. It is also an advance of the legal discourse on Palestine, as it comprehensively frames what befell the Palestinians since Oct 7 and further helps to isolate Israel as a rogue state. Regarding the lack of cease order in the ruling, Sultany critiqued the focus on ceasefire because it overlooks the asymmetry of power between the parties and Israel’s legal obligations regardless of cease fire. Finally, Sultany closed by stressing that law is not a substitute for politics and the importance of a broader political vision that guides legal interventions towards the cause of liberation.

Meanwhile, Samer Ghamroun dealt with the consequences of the decline of the liberal legal illusion in the context of Western discourse on Palestine. He highlighted a growing rejection among students and the public of international human rights and humanitarian law and its ability to protect basic rights, particularly in the face of Israel’s crimes in Palestine and their western supporters. Ghamroun emphasized the break in the western human rights discourse which is justifying crimes against humanity and genocide in unprecedented ways since 1945. He linked this dangerous transformation in discourse to rising far-right movements in the West and the efforts of liberal parties to accommodate these movements and their Islamophobic racist ideology, which is expressing itself today around Palestine. He expected hard times for Arab rights defenders in light of this delegitimization of human rights law under Israeli strikes and Western complicity, a worrying evolution that Arab regimes will exploit, He emphasized the need to rethink reliance on Western legal sources and funding for rights-based work in the Arab region, acknowledging the challenges of preserving capabilities and protecting vulnerable people and groups in the midst of these reconfigurations, while breaking free from Western influence. He also expressed skepticism about the immediate impact of legal proceedings like those at the ICJ on the perceived legitimacy of international law but underscored the importance of legal tools as political instruments to amplify discourse and achieve symbolic victories.

Finally, Zeina Jallad addressed the limitations of international law in providing justice for Palestinians. She emphasized the numerous UN resolutions since Resolution 181 in 1947, which have contributed to the development of international law but have failed to deliver substantial justice to Palestinians themselves. She underscored the challenge of translating legal availability into practical accessibility for Palestinians, questioning effective avenues for justice. Jallad explored the tension between law as a tool of power and its emancipatory potential for utopian ideals, advocating for pragmatic legal strategies to advance societal improvement, despite acknowledged limitations. Additionally, she highlighted recent legal efforts globally to address Palestinian rights violations, including resorting to universal jurisdiction. She cited recent cases in Switzerland, the US, Netherlands, France, and Canada, where legal avenues are pursued to address grave Palestinian rights violations. Furthermore, Jallad emphasized the moral significance of these legal cases in narrating history and collective memory. They serve as crucial documentation of the ongoing wrongdoings against Palestinians, from the Nakba to the present day. By bringing these cases to light, they provide unprecedented insight into the persistent injustices faced by Palestinians, amplifying their voices and struggles on a global scale.