Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by clairealex
Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine by Noura Erakat
5.0
The value of this book for me was an introduction to international law that in other contexts I've heard only references to. Although in a couple sections I got lost in the back and forth of changes to agreements' wording, I got the main points. (And I don't think it was the author's problem; I am just not familiar with that kind of argument and verbal analysis.)
While I was not unfamiliar with the concept that law has to be interpreted, reading this book has me looking at that in a fresh way when thinking of international law--no longer looking for the correct interpretation. What makes international law different is that there is no international supreme court to arbitrate between differing states' interpretations.
Erakat makes the point early that law and politics are imbricated and that political advantage will always be involved in interpretation. She also asserts that changes in law require political action to leverage any advantage or they become useless. Or worse. "In cases where there is no political will to compel a state to comply with the law, violations can become the norm rather than the exception" (185).
She illustrates her thesis by telling the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict through the lens of legal decisions from he 1917 Balfour declaration to the time of her writing (2019). One example: she shows how defining Palestine as exceptional--hence current law is not seen as applicable--works to Palestine's disadvantage by attempting erasure. This is followed by legal declarations that seek to remove the disadvantage and are successful as law but not followed up with appropriate action and further declarations. While most of her examples are of Israel/Palestine interaction, occasionally she makes comparison to those of other countries, always pointing out differences as well as similarities.
I hope to remember this: " . . . the nature of international law [is] a living instrument that is continually made, implemented, broken, and remade" (182).
While I was not unfamiliar with the concept that law has to be interpreted, reading this book has me looking at that in a fresh way when thinking of international law--no longer looking for the correct interpretation. What makes international law different is that there is no international supreme court to arbitrate between differing states' interpretations.
Erakat makes the point early that law and politics are imbricated and that political advantage will always be involved in interpretation. She also asserts that changes in law require political action to leverage any advantage or they become useless. Or worse. "In cases where there is no political will to compel a state to comply with the law, violations can become the norm rather than the exception" (185).
She illustrates her thesis by telling the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict through the lens of legal decisions from he 1917 Balfour declaration to the time of her writing (2019). One example: she shows how defining Palestine as exceptional--hence current law is not seen as applicable--works to Palestine's disadvantage by attempting erasure. This is followed by legal declarations that seek to remove the disadvantage and are successful as law but not followed up with appropriate action and further declarations. While most of her examples are of Israel/Palestine interaction, occasionally she makes comparison to those of other countries, always pointing out differences as well as similarities.
I hope to remember this: " . . . the nature of international law [is] a living instrument that is continually made, implemented, broken, and remade" (182).