Lebanon explosions ‘almost certainly criminal’, says human rights lawyer

Sir Geoffrey Nice: They are almost certainly criminal on a number of grounds, many of which your viewers will be familiar with, having become more acquainted with war crimes law since ’22 for Russia, Ukraine and last October for Israel-Gaza. These things, which exploded, exploded in an uncertain place at the time they did. Obviously likely to be amongst civilians, even if also in the presence of the people being aimed at. Attack on the civilian population? Unlawful. Even if damaging the person aimed at because, in his possession with or without anyone else, unless he’s actually an active combatant, unlawful. Even if there’s any other defence for what’s going on, i.e. the argument of self-defence and all that sort of thing. Let’s assume that’s lawful, is it, and this will be a word your viewers are familiar with, is it proportionate? Clearly not. You cannot calculate what the damage – the collateral damage – to civilians, children, whoever else it might be, is. It’s quite likely to be far greater than the advantage, if any, of harming or killing the individuals whose pager it was hoped it would be. Therefore, criminal.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy: It is akin to terrorism then?
Sir Geoffrey Nice: I’d rather just stick with the law itself. It is criminal acts within a conflict – as it has been since October – since and certainly before. And it has been unlawful by non-proportionality and also by other specific crimes, attacking schools, attacking civilians, and now, of course, attacking people completely unknown. This is a criminal war on both sides. And the Western countries have got to say that, accept it and starve both sides of any ability to continue with it.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy: If Lebanon wanted to try and bring Israel to account in some way, or any other country, over this act, these bombings, what are the routes available?
Sir Geoffrey Nice: There are no lawful routes by way of unlawful use of force. And Lebanon’s best route now is to prayer in aid such parts of this very limited international world order that there are – and to try and get the International Criminal Court not just to consider what has been happening on the territory of Gaza and Israel, which is jurisdiction they already have, but to consider further, whether this is a case of jurisdiction that should be now considered and taken into account by the International Criminal Court in Lebanon itself. There is no justification for setting aside the limited benefits, if any, but better than nothing, that the international criminal legal order can bring. And that’s what Lebanon should be pressing for now.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy: And is there anything that the Security Council could do to bring this within the jurisdiction of the ICC?
Sir Geoffrey Nice: Yes, you can refer the matter to it.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy: So it can do that on Friday? It is meeting, we are told.
Sir Geoffrey Nice: I would hope so, yes. Why not?
Krishnan Guru-Murthy: Right. And in the absence of that, there is no other way.
Sir Geoffrey Nice: It is really distressing to the ordinary citizen, like you and me, the fact that people do not want to die in conflict seems not to be recognised by the great powers who still enjoy game playing when it comes to armed conflicts. These conflicts and all of them should be stopped by an overwhelming desire to achieve peace in the area. And I’m afraid to say it can’t really be said that that’s been an overwhelming desire on the part of, for example, those who’ve been particularly supportive of one side or another of this horrible conflict.