More 'Stoning' of the Goldstone Report

It's never too late.

Here's a law review article demolishing the Goldstone Report, entitled,

THE APPLICATION OF IHL IN THE GOLDSTONE REPORT:
A CRITICAL COMMENTARY
Laurie R. Blank
Emory University School of Law
Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series
Research Paper No. 10-96

12 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law (2009)

Note:

Section three highlights several areas in which the Goldstone Report’s application of IHL is questionable, either because it uses the incorrect legal standard or because it applies the wrong law when more than one body of law applies. The report errs twice in its treatment of the principle of proportionality, first by approaching jus in bello proportionality retrospectively rather than prospectively, and second by conflating jus ad bellum proportionality with jus in bello proportionality. Additional problems arise in its analysis of the law governing precautions in attack and the treatment of prisoners of war, and its assessment of responsibility for specific crimes, including attacks on civilians, destruction of property and hostage taking.

IHL seeks to balance two key goals – military necessity and humanity. In this way, the law protects civilians from the ravages of war while still enabling effective military operations. Interpretations of the law that leave militaries with no lawful means by which to engage in necessary operations are often viewed as counter-productive and pose the risk of generating disregard for legal norms. The Goldstone Report unfortunately fails to give sufficient weight to this inherent balancing – the most basic and historic premise of humanitarian law: the ‘desire to diminish the evils of war, as far as military requirements permit.’

So, Sir Richard is not above criticism.

Will he respond?


- - -

P.S. Seems the link is dead so try this:

This paper can be downloaded without charge from:
The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1584724