Conundrum?

Back in the early 1960s, Mossad, Israel Spy agency, spirited out Adolf Eichmann of Argentina after defecting him there to Israel to try him for crimes against the Jews(humanity) committed in the Holocaust. He was tried under the law that was non-existent at the time of committing actual crimes, for the law that made binding upon him to carry out his duties as per the code of rules. The trial brought his eventual execution. Adolf Eichmann, as one may know, was a German-Austrian SS-Obersturmbannführer and major Holocaust Organizer—final German solution to the “Jewish question”. He was responsible for the shipment of Jews to the death camps. Not long ago, a judgement was pronounced at the International Court of Justice ,positing that the court has jurisdiction over the crimes (read: “war crimes”) committed in the occupied territories of Palestine by Israel. The judgement caught a sharp reaction from both Israel and Palestine. Former rejected the decision with sharp criticism whereas the latter hailed the decision as the decision could possibly pave a way for trying the “involved members” for the similar charge put forward in the case of Adolf Hichmann by Israel: “crimes against humanity”. Now, the above cases confront us with a huge “conundrum”. In the former case, the trial was fairly being criticized for some good reasons: 1) trying someone by the law that was not existent at the time, for the law that made binding upon him to carry out the responsibilities without vetting the substance of responsibilities;2) the speedy nature of trial;3) reversible errors in the trial. In the latter case, in ICC judgement, the court finding is being criticized for the reason that as Israel is not signatory to ICC so the court has no jurisdiction over the crimes (amount to “war crimes”) committed in the occupied territories of Palestine—a fair position. This is where the theory of justice, moral philosophy come into play to decide on the legality of trial in the first case and the jurisdiction in the second case. Judging by the doctrine of “legal positionism”, the trial was legitimate in the first case as the Israel was mighty enough by that time to assert its authority whereas the “jurisdiction” in the second case would be legitimate depending thoroughly upon the strength of “ICC” in implementing its writ.
Muhammad Tayyab
Rawalpindi