Column | The wank and law

Can you put aside international law if ‘the population’ asks for it? In principle not, the idea of ​​the law is that it limits the majority of the moment. Nevertheless, the new German government uses the ‘the population’ argument now to justify that refugees are being stopped at the border, even if that is contrary to the Refugee Convention. « The willingness to receive refugees has never been as small in Germany as now, » said CDU parliamentarian Alexander Throm to the NOS.

The same argument used nine EU countries under the leadership of Giorgia Meloni, who this week called in a letter to a ‘new and candid conversation’ about the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. They want it to be easier for Member States to turn off « criminal foreigners », and they believe that they « are strongly aligned with the majority of European citizens, » the letter said. Minister Faber (PVV) wanted Prime Minister Schoof to put his signature. He refused, to Wilders’s anger.

It fits in a trend under (radical) right-wing parties to question international law. Radical-right politicians in particular portray the (international) justice as an elitist stand-in-the-way of ‘De Volkswil’. And also fewer radical parties are struggling with it: does the people pick it up if they continue to refer to international treaties? A middle party such as the VVD argued in its last election program itself for the adjustment of the Refugee Convention. At the same time, middle parties, unlike the radical right, want to continue to take international law seriously. It is important that the population does that too.

That is not always the case. Last year, for example, international research by IPSOS and UNHCR (the UN refugee organization) showed that support for refugee shelters has been falling for years: 49 percent of the Dutch want to close the boundaries for refugees. This percentage was 44 percent worldwide. In other words: a quite large part of the (world) population thinks it was nice with the internationally established right to reception. It seems to fit the image that the ‘rules-based order‘Had his longest time.

It is precisely in this context that it is interesting that there is now also a reverse situation worldwide: citizens take to the streets to demand that their governments respect international law. That Israel in Gaza acts contrary to international humanitarian law was already clear a year and a half ago, and the situation has only become worse. The large -scale bombing and devastation do not meet the requirement of proportionality, and Israel is also guilty of starvation and forced relocation. Experts even believe in the majority that Israel is committing a genocide, it turned out last week in an article in NRC.

The resistance to Israel’s war crimes is growing all over the world. In the Netherlands the largest demonstration took place in twenty years last weekend, and according to a recent poll by IPSOS I&O, only 15 percent have supported the way in which the Netherlands deals with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More than half think that the Netherlands should be more critical of Israel. But the critical citizens are barely represented in politics. Like other governments, the Dutch government is in a moral holding line: Anyone who criticizes Israel is soon called for anti -Semite. When Minister Veldkamp (NSC) recently announced that he wanted to investigate in a European context whether Israel is complying with the conditions for the association agreement with the EU, such as the duty to respect human rights, he immediately received criticism from Wilders.

But what Veldkamp did is the only logical thing to do. With his cautious step, he puts an end to the idiotic legal exceptional position that Israel enjoys, and that affects the credibility of international law.

In recent years, politicians have referred to international law at all kinds of moments to justify their actions. We have to achieve the climate goals, we have to allow refugees and their family members, we are not allowed to turn off criminal foreigners. But when it came to Israel, the international law suddenly was without obligation, more a suggestion than a duty. Actually are the settlements illegal, actually must be self -defense proportional, actually If you are not allowed to have a starter and forced to move, actually Israel must show respect for human rights for the Treaty with the European Union, but yes, what do you do about it?

There are several of course reasons to finally take steps against Israel. If politicians are not sensitive to that, then maybe this can persuade them: those who take international law selectively seriously should not expect the population to continue to see it as authoritative.

Floor Rusman ([email protected]) is editor of NRC

To share

Mail the editors