Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Acknowledgments -- Contributors -- Contents -- Transliteration of Arabic terms -- Abbreviations -- Editor's introduction - in the name of the law -- PART I LAW 'S FIRST STRIKE -- 1 The degradation of international law? -- 2 Postmodern just wars: Kosovo, Afghanistan and the new world order -- 3 Enduring right -- 4 The terrors of freedom: the sovereignty of states and the freedom to fear -- PART 2 THE GROUND OF RIGHTS -- 5 Cuba and the axis of evil: an old outlaw in the new order -- 6 A1 Qa'ida: terrorists or irregulars? -- 7 International refugee law: excluding the Palestinians -- 8 Islamic feminism, possibilities and limitations -- 9 The balancing act: counter-terrorism and civil liberties in British anti-terrorism law -- PART 3 GROUND ZERO'S PROSPECTS -- 10 Locating 'Ground Zero': caught between the narratives of crime and war -- 11 September 11 and American policy in the Middle East -- 12 Palestine/Israel: conflict at the crossroads -- 13 Jirga: power and traditional conflict resolution in Afghanistan -- 14 Islamic law and the English press -- Index

Abstract
The trauma of the October 7 massacre for Israelis and the catastrophe that Gazans have experienced in the subsequent war mark a new stage in the Palestinian–Israeli conflict. While October 7 and indeed the Israeli response are exceptional, we cannot overcome their consequences without addressing the root of the conflict. Calls for an immediate ceasefire are understandable but fall into the trap of seeing the solution as being a military decision. This echoes to the attitude of the current Israeli government which poses the response to October 7 as a military one. A new international political initiative is required to change the atmosphere by setting the goal of resolving the conflict on the basis of self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians. That needs to inform the approach we adopt to ending the current conflict by replacing Hamas and Israel in Gaza with an international security mechanism.

The British government claimed that one of the objectives of the Iraq war 2003 was to establish democracy and to protect human rights. This article tracks the manner in which Iraq features in successive Foreign and Commonwealth Office annual Human Rights Reports, before and after the
war. British initiatives at the United Nations were carefully choreographed so that British policy on Iraq would appear consistent with the international community. After the war, Britain's commitment to building a human rights culture in Iraq was much trumpeted but its actual policies were
thin on the ground. This was a war in which both Iraqis and human rights were to be the losers.