Forum Topic

Philippe Sands on International Law -  a very relevant lecture

This is a very timely lecture which I would recommend to anyone who is following current and recent international events.It was delivered last month by Philippe Sands, KC on the occasion of the annual Alf Dubs Foundation lecture at the Battersea Arts Centre.The link: https://www.alfdubslecture.org.uk/2026-lecturePhilippe Sands covers the highly topical issues of presidential immunity, impunity and the challenges and possible consequences for those who seek to undermine or ignore international law.His words were delivered before the current conflict in Iran broke out, but reference not only the Nuremburg trials of 1945 but also the Pinochet immunity case from 1998 and the 2024 US Supreme Court judgement on presidential immunity.

Jonathan Callaway ● 20d56 Comments

Mr Hawkes, my understanding is our oil and gas would go onto the world market - again a bad decision by Thatcher's government to abandon the BNOC ownership of oil and a sovereign wealth fund (like Norway) and sell it to the oil companies for tax and royalties. It's interesting that even with Trump's "drill baby, drill" policy in the US oil prices are rising because of global market increase.Yes, we are still living with the Thatcher mistakes, several decades later.Anyway, even if we start drilling now the US/Israel-Iran war will be over by the time it flows so best look at the long term strategy of renewals? If it's not over within the year we have WWIII and, as Einstein said, the war after the next, WWIV, will be fought with stick and stones. Let's hope someone in the US knows how to stop it; Trump's statement that the war is over doesn't seem to be in accord with current Iranian actions in the Gulf - or Israel's in Lebanon - or the US's for that matter? I think the UAE et al are possibly losing patience with Trump as something they didn't want is killing their economy. Also, if oil to China is constrained, will they intervene to open it up? 

Michael Ixer ● 13d

Mr IxerAll very well continuing to rant and rail against the energy policy of Mrs Thatcher who I believe ceased to be PM in 1990.However it is a fact that the UK has vast reserves of off-shore natural gas and oil as well as that susceptible to inland fracking.We could begin to free ourselves from the effect of Middle East politics on our energy policy if 'lil Ed Miliband and the Labour government allowed these unique resources to be exploited and put to good use. We would then be able to reduce our home and industrial energy costs as well as provide well paid jobs in Scotland and NE England where they are needed.Instead UK citizens suffer from a misguided and politically naïve policy regarding 'global warming' whilst China builds hundreds of coal fired power stations to produce exports to the UK - including solar panels that Miliband wants us all to rely on !

John Hawkes ● 13d

Steven, as I've explained before I've no time for religious extreme governments such as Iran's rulers and don't want them or any other non nuclear state to obtain atomic weapons. Although, to be fair, the Iranians, assuming they have the amounts of enriched uranium claimed, they have refrained from using it to make 'dirty' bombs for their drones; that would really mess up the middle east as even downed drones would mess up the environment and potentially make it uninhabitable. The trouble is that Trump’s blitzkreig seems to be hurting many Iranians that protested against their authoritarian regime. (I'm expect the schoolgirls killed in the double tap attack that also hurt their rescuers - suspected to be based on out of date intelligence - may not have wanted to be forced to wear hijabs.) And his false statements mean one mistrusts everything he says. The worrying thing is, I have a feeling he doesn't really know what he's saying but actually believes it himself - this latest one about dead people walking without legs seems confirm that! https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/trump-says-there-are-dead-people-walking-around-with-no-legs-in-iran-403980/A bit surreal! Perhaps why discussions fail and needed a sensible strategy from the US? Still, we'll all just have to such up the increased energy costs because we didn't develop renewable fast enough; another Thatcher mistake based on Lawson's scientific ignorance.

Michael Ixer ● 14d

Mr Ainsworth'Therefore, while Iran is legally bound to much higher transparency than Israel, its actual cooperation has been characterized by intense, ongoing, and often obstructed inspection efforts, whereas Israel operates with almost complete lack of international oversight'Everyone knows that Israel has nuclear weapons and most understand why.Can you give any reason why Israel should want to use a nuclear weapon as a first strike on another neighbouring state ?Why would it be in its interest to do so and would it not also suffer the effects of collateral fall-out ?Is not its possession of such a weapon a prevention against an attack with any similar weapon from the surrounding states that have avowed to annihilate it ? Iran prevaricates over international inspections because it wants to develop nuclear weapons which would then be in the hands of religious zealots who would not hesitate to use them.Everyone except you knows that too.This is not cricket its realpolitik.And one takes sides.You the Islamic backward dictatorship that is the state of Iran and me democratic thriving 'western' democracy that is Israel.

John Hawkes ● 14d

StevenAs someone suggested to Mr Ainsworth, perhaps he should get off his keyboard and enjoy the sunshine.Perhaps too, so should we !Ainsworth has condemned himself many times over on this Forum as a fascist antisemite; anti-American and I believe anti-British and who wishes to see the annihilation of Israel and its Jewish citizens.Apart from his having some innate psychotic hatred of Israel and the Jews I do not understand why and he never says.Let's leave him alone to stew in his own putrid prejudiced juice.Nothing and no one will change him.

John Hawkes ● 14d

Mr Ainsworth'Iran would have to be utterly mad (madder than Trump even) to actually to obtain and prepare to use them.'But 'it' or the mullahs that rule in Iran are mad.They are extreme Islamists whose aim is to dominate the region and to annihilate Israel.Not that either point would concern you.'Face it, Israel does not want Iran to gain the power to counterbalance the power of Israel. Israel wishes to retain superiority. They know that the US may not be there always as back-up power'.Israel wishes to retain superiority in what regard ?Not economically or politically in a region of failed Islamic states.It holds this position already.But certainly it wishes quite rightly to retain it militarily  as protection against states that wish to see it annihilated as we all know you do to.And against the misogynistic Islamic religion of states that surround it which place more emphasis on martyrdom and a glorious sexual afterlife than it does with peace and harmony in this one.Stop supporting and encouraging them.Pity you could not join the Al Quds Day march scheduled for London on Sunday, now banned by the fascist Labour Government.Could you tell us what they are protesting for or against ?Or are you going to persist in joining one and run the risk of arrest ?'This morning, a spokesperson for the Islamic Human Rights (sic) Commission (IHRC), which organises the protest, confirmed a static demonstration will still happen.They said: 'IHRC strongly condemns the decision by the Metropolitan Police to ban the Al Quds Day March. However, a static Al Quds Day protest will still go ahead.'We hope to see you on Sunday 15th March Insha Allah. All preparations must continue as planned. We are seeking legal advice and this decision will not go unchallenged.'The statement added: 'If it was not clear already, the police have brazenly abandoned their sworn principle of policing without fear or favour, and have capitulated to the pressure of the Zionist lobby (Ah pesky Jews controlling the Government and the Met Police).'The Metropolitan Police unashamedly regurgitate Zionist talking points about IHRC without a shred of evidence. They cannot present evidence because there is none – we are an independent NGO.' (With what objective one wonders)  'A spokesman for the IHRC, Faisal Bodi, told the BBC's The World Tonight that it was 'a sad day for freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and the right of people to legitimately protest about issues they feel strongly about'.He added: 'This demonstration has taken place for the last 40 years peacefully.'Note that the Al-Quds Brigades is the military wing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and is the second-largest armed group in the Gaza Strip, known for its paramilitary operations against Israel.The IHRC has previously expressed support for Iran's former supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.Following his death in a US-Israeli airstrike last month, the group said Mr Khamenei 'chose to stand on the right side of history' and described him as 'a rare role model' who would be 'mourned by freedom loving people all over the world'.Well almost - strongly backed by Iran's terror police in reality.Why don't these Arabs leave the UK and fight their tribal religious wars on their own turf ?Why does the British taxpayer have to support their vile and malign actions on our streets ?

John Hawkes ● 14d

Mr Ainsworth'I wouldn't have started from here.'You sound like the Forum's favourite Irishman !

John Hawkes ● 14d

David you are becoming more and more obsessed with this issue.  You really need to step away from the keyboard enjoy a Spring day.

Robert Wheeler ● 14d

Israel is widely believed to possess a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU), though it has never officially confirmed or denied this, maintaining a policy of nuclear ambiguity.Iran has been significantly more subjected to international nuclear inspections than Israel, as a signatory to the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty), while Israel operates outside of it. However, Iran's compliance has been inconsistent, and it frequently restricts or suspends access, such as expelling inspectors in 2025 following attacks on its facilities. Israel does not declare its nuclear capabilities and maintains very limited, voluntary IAEA oversight of only certain sites. Iran's Position: As a Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) member, Iran is under a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, requiring it to allow IAEA inspection of all nuclear material. However, since 2021, Iran has stopped adhering to key monitoring measures, resulting in a lack of continuity in knowledge about its enrichment, centrifuges, and stockpiles. In late 2025, Iran refused inspections of sites damaged in conflicts.Israel's Position: Israel is not a party to the NPT and is widely believed to possess a nuclear arsenal, which it neither confirms nor denies. Its IAEA cooperation is limited to voluntary arrangements, far less restrictive than Iran's, and does not cover its suspected weapons-related activities.Inspections Context: The IAEA continues to monitor 13 declared, non-bombed facilities in Iran, but the overall relationship is marked by high tension and periods of denied access. Therefore, while Iran is legally bound to much higher transparency than Israel, its actual cooperation has been characterized by intense, ongoing, and often obstructed inspection efforts, whereas Israel operates with almost complete lack of international oversight

David Ainsworth ● 14d

For most civil purposes uranium only needs to be enriched to between 3-5%. Why has Iran enriched 200 kilos of uranium to 60%?

Steven Rose ● 14d

That's the way to do it."Iran has enriched uranium to a level far beyond anything that might be needed for peaceful purposes with the clear intention of building a nuclear bomb.""In March 2025, the US Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Tulsi Gabbard, testified that the US intelligence community continued to assess that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. Key details from the 2025 assessment and subsequent events include:Initial 2025 Assessment: During testimony for the Annual Threat Assessment on 25 March 2025, DNI Gabbard stated that despite high levels of uranium enrichment, Iran had not restarted the nuclear weapons program it suspended in 2003 and that Supreme Leader Khamenei had not reauthorized such a program.Contradiction by President Trump: In June 2025, President Donald Trump publicly disagreed with this assessment, stating that the intelligence community was "wrong" and claiming that Iran was actually "very close to having a weapon".Subsequent Clarification: Following the President's public criticism, Gabbard clarified her position in late June 2025, stating that her March testimony had been "taken out of context" and that Iran could now produce a nuclear weapon "within weeks to months".Military Action: These conflicting assessments occurred shortly before the US and Israel launched targeted strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025, which the administration claimed "obliterated" key capabilities."Facts are immutable, aren't they?30 years of imminence, remember? Finally Netanyahu found a willing sucker in Trump..........................Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.Groucho Marx

David Ainsworth ● 14d

Fact 1: Iran has consistently called for the destruction of the ‘Zionist entity’:‘Israel is a disgraceful blot that should be wiped off the face of the earth’(Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, President, 27 October 2005) (‘The Guardian’)Fact 2: Iran has financed and armed its proxies to attack Israel.‘Lebanese Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, Yemen’s Houthis, Hamas and Islamic Jihad receive Iranian support.’House of Commons Library, 25 July 2024Fact 3: Iran has enriched uranium to 60% purity,The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Authority, Rafael  Grossi, has said that his agency believes that Iran has stored more than 200 kilos of uranium enriched up to 60% at a site in Isfahan.(Reuters, 9 March 2026)

Steven Rose ● 14d

"These are all facts."You say so. Doesn't make it so.

David Ainsworth ● 15d

Iran’s avowed aim is to wipe the ‘Zionist entity’ off the map. In pursuit of this aim Iran has financed and armed its proxies - Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis - to attack Israel over several years. And Iran has enriched uranium to a level far beyond anything that might be needed for peaceful purposes with the clear intention of building a nuclear bomb. These are all facts. And as if this weren’t enough, the Iranian regime murdered around 30 000 of its own citizens over two weeks in January, shooting peaceful protesters in the eyes and the groin. I can’t imagine that anyone on the Forum feels anything but contempt for the regime and suspicion of its aims. So my question remains, what should be done about Iran?

Steven Rose ● 15d

"which they might enrich further in the future so as to produce a bomb or several bombs. Are you happily with this prospect? If not, what do you think should be done about it?"I'd stop making up "might" scenarios to frighten everybody, for a start.I expect that you agree that the US has a large number of nuclear weapons and that Israel has, arguably, a small-ish number. Iran would have to be utterly mad (madder than Trump even) to actually to obtain and prepare to use them. Face it, Israel does not want Iran to gain the power to counterbalance the power of Israel. Israel wishes to retain superiority. They know that the US may not be there always as back-up power.

David Ainsworth ● 15d

I wouldn't have started from here.

David Ainsworth ● 15d

That is to say, what do you think should be done about Iran?

Steven Rose ● 15d

Yes, but having proved to your satisfaction that Trump is a liar and a thoroughly disreputable man, what do you think about Iran?

Steven Rose ● 15d

Nothing to prove, Steven, most US news feeds are stating it.

Michael Ixer ● 15d

Michael,you seem more concerned to prove that Trump is a liar than to address the issues. I am sure that the Americans did disable the Iranian nuclear programme last year but that does not mean that they permanently destroyed Iran's ability to obtain a nuclear capability. It seems that the Iranians have managed to salvage a certain quantity of enriched uranium which they might enrich further in the future so as to produce a bomb or several bombs. Are you happily with this prospect? If not, what do you think should be done about it?

Steven Rose ● 15d

But Trump said they'd disabled Iran's nuclear programme earlier in the year? Did he lie? Like he lied about accidentally hitting a girls school?

Michael Ixer ● 15d

Why are you hogging a thread on Philippe Sands with all your irrelevant ramblings?Anyway, pop over to Ireland and see for yourself, it’s only 45 minutes by plane and don’t believe all the stuff you come across on whatever social media sites you visit or follow; it’s not healthy to consume so much toxic bile.Yes, I agree, Michael D Higgins was a first rate President and a man of culture and peace.

Gerry Boyce ● 15d

In point of fact, Jonathan, the phrase ‘imminent threat’ does not appear in Article 51 of the UN Charter which permits the right of self-defence. This is a gloss which some jurists have subsequently placed on the Charter. In any case, as far as the Israelis are concerned, the threat from Iran is not just imminent or potential but actual  and ever-present given that Israel has been the target of constant rocket attacks over many years by Iranian proxies. The question that the critics of Israel need to answer is the one I posed in my previous post: ‘Should Israel wait until their Iranian enemy has increased its stockpile of missiles and produced a nuclear bomb before responding militarily?

Steven Rose ● 15d

Boycie'How do I live amongst the English, you ask. Very easily really, I have found London to be a city full of the most decent, tolerant, vibrant and resourceful people I have met. It was a beacon of opportunity and tolerance that drew people like me to come here to find opportunities and open doors where they didn't exist back home; this was the eighties when the Church and self-interested politics and small minded sectarianism was in the ascendency. Fortunately that has changed now'.And I am sure we British have all benefited from the contribution you have made to our country and thank you profusely.'Small minded (religious) sectarianism' may no longer be in the ascendancy in Ireland but the sectarianism of the Middle East conflict seems to be thriving; anti-Israel and pro-Arab of course.  And perhaps you were wise to leave your home land for it seems they are not quite so tolerant when it comes to immigration as we are in your case.As usual it seems the Irish elite establishment are all in favour of increased immigration but the 'lower classes' who are more negatively impacted by it are not."The Irish establishment is fuelling the rage on the streetsWhy is no one talking about the alleged rape of a child, by an illegal migrant, which sparked this awful unrest?"https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/10/22/the-irish-establishment-is-fuelling-the-rage-on-the-streets/The Irish are obviously very ambivalent when it comes to support for terrorism - be it by the IRA or Islamists.From the Spectator -"The reality is that Ireland’s attitude towards the regime in Teheran has always been schizophrenic. Barely 18 months ago, the then-Taoiseach (now Tánaiste) Simon Harris reopened the Irish embassy in Teheran. Two days later, the Islamic regime fired hundreds of ballistic missiles at Israel.And who could forget former president Michael D Higgins’s congratulatory letter to the incoming Iranian president, Masoud Pezeshkian, wishing him well ‘in his future endeavours.’‘Iran with its long tradition of culture will play a crucial role in achieving stability, cooperation and peace’ across the Middle East,’ he intoned". Oh, I read that Gerry Adams is wearing a bullet proof jacket in court.Who is he scared of ?MI5 or some provo-IRA member who perhaps he once lead and who in turn is worried he might spill the beans !

John Hawkes ● 15d

Boycie'Fortunately, it's on Youtube, so you can pause it to take regular comfort breaks.'I am not quite sure the point of this remark.Would you explain ?

John Hawkes ● 15d

And Israel's evil intentions?Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu has warned of an imminent threat from an Iranian nuclear bomb for more than 30 years.The US Director of National Intelligence in 2025 said that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon.Who can we believe?Meanwhile Dimona only produces Scotch mist, we are assured.

David Ainsworth ● 15d

as I understand it the legality or otherwise boils down to whether or not there is deemed to be an “imminent threat”.  I am not sure that case has been made, any more than the case was made for responding to the WMD “threat” back in 2003.The Iran regime’s evil intentions are well known but how immediate was the threat? After all, their nuclear capabilities were supposedly destroyed as recently as last year and even before the current bombing campaign started there was little more than belligerent statements emanating from Teheran.

Jonathan Callaway ● 15d

Let us not forget that Iran’s Middle East neighbours don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons but not in a position to do anything.

Robert Wheeler ● 16d

Thanks for the references, Jonathan. My concern about Philippe Sands' lecture was not so much about his unqualified support for the European Convention on Human Rights (though I think he glosses over some of the difficulties that have arisen from extreme interpretations of the Convention in respect of illegal migrants and foreign criminals) but about his set view of international law as an agreed set of rules against which nations and their leaders can be judged.No one disputes that the perpetrators of egregious crimes like genocide and child abduction should be punished. But the law surrounding wars of aggression, for example, is far less clear. The UN Charter basically condemns war as an instrument of foreign policy except in two circumstances: a war in self-defence or a war authorised by the Security Council. The second exception is frankly laughable. It implies that a war is only legal if it is endorsed by a body including Russia and China, two of the worst international offenders. The first exception is also fraught with difficulty simply because one man's war of aggression is another's war of self defence. This can be seen in the context of the current situation in Iran. The Attorney General apparently told the Prime Minister that the attack by America and Israel on Iran is illegal, being a war of unprovoked aggression. And a number of people, including Ed Davey, Zack Polanski, and probably Philippe Sands and most of the audience at his lecture, would agree with Lord Hermer's opinion. But I am sure that Benjamin Netanyahu and a majority of Israelis would not see it that way. From their point of view Iran is a country of 90 million which has never recognised Israel's right to exist, which has consistently claimed that the 'Zionist entity' should be wiped off the map, which has sponsored terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis to attack Israel, which has obtained ballistic missiles and which is trying to develop a nuclear capability. As far as they are concerned the attack on Iran is a preemptive strike. Their answer to the bien pensant critics at Philippe Sands' lecture would be, 'Are we supposed to wait until Iran actually gets a nuclear bomb?'

Steven Rose ● 16d

Back to topic.For Steven's benefit, though anyone interested in looking at the legal issues around the use of human rights protections in deportation cases might wish to click here:https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2025-09-04-misrepresentations-around-human-rights-and-immigration-fuelling-calls-quit-echrThis article is a commentary on a report analysing the widespread mis-reporting of the legal position that has contributed to calls for the UK to leave the ECHR. The full report is here:https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2025-09/European%20Convention%20on%20Human%20Rights%20and%20Immigration%20Control%20in%20the%20UK_4%20Sept%202025.pdfPlenty of reading for those interested enough!Here's a bit more ("3 minutes reading time") on the EHCR, from Chatham House.  Written in 2023 but still valid despite references to Rishi Sunak as PM (remember him?).  Their concern focuses on the implications for the Good Friday Agreement.https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/03/uk-must-not-sleepwalk-leaving-echrStarmer has announced a review of the ECHR and/or the HRA but that review seems not to have got very far as yet.  A Guardian view is here: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/dec/09/starmer-urges-europe-leaders-update-echr-halt-rise-far-right

Jonathan Callaway ● 16d

I know, John, it can be hard for some to hold onto complex and apparently contradictory thoughts and opinions at the same time. I'm not sure what you are referring to about me being a self-proclaimed supporter of the IRA; if anyone cares what I think, I have never supported the IRA's actions, but I do sympathise with their aims for a United Ireland, on condition, of course, that it is what the people of Ireland choose, including the Unionists.How do I live amongst the English, you ask. Very easily really, I have found London to be a city full of the most decent, tolerant, vibrant and resourceful people I have met. It was a beacon of opportunity and tolerance that drew people like me to come here to find opportunities and open doors where they didn't exist back home; this was the eighties when the Church and self-interested politics and small minded sectarianism was in the ascendency. Fortunately that has changed now.Unfortunately, things have changed for the worse here, but I live in hope.I'll let you try and figure out the reference to comfort breaks!Have a great day!

Gerry Boyce ● 16d

BoycieWhy should I need comfort breaks watching this Philippe Sands video ?This point escapes me.I do not have time to take up your suggestion at the moment as I am more engrossed in the civil case being brought against Gerry Adams the well known non-member of the IRA.The IRA; an Irish terror organisation responsible for the deaths of 1,800 British citizens.Though as an Irishman and a self proclaimed supporter of the 'RA I doubt this troubles you much.How can you bear to live amongst us ?Adams defence barristers' case was summarised as follows."Lawyers for Mr Adams said he "played an instrumental role in the peace process which culminated in the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in April 1998, which brought an end to the decades-long conflict".In written submissions, Edward Craven KC, representing Mr Adams, said: "The defendant's alleged factual and legal responsibility for the claimants' injuries is strongly contested, as is the claimants' ability to bring these claims against the defendant several decades after the expiry of the applicable limitation period."So, 'he "played an instrumental role in the peace process which culminated in the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in April 1998, which brought an end to the decades-long conflict".A defence that Ian Huntley might have used."I brought an end to decades of child murders when I decided to stop carrying them out."Regarding Adams, insert 'murdering civilians to attempt to pressure the British Government to in turn force the British nationals in Northern Ireland to accept a political resolution they did not want'.Oh and I note his defence also rest upon "the claimants' ability to bring these claims against the defendant several decades after the expiry of the applicable limitation period."Meaning all these murders took place a long time ago so forget about it."Nah na na na nah".

John Hawkes ● 16d

Why not listen to the speech for yourself, John. Fortunately, it's on Youtube, so you can pause it to take regular comfort breaks.

Gerry Boyce ● 16d

Boycie'The world is much more  complex than some gum-chewing, swaggering autocratic leaders and their sycophantic supporters and spineless, self-interested business backers appreciate'.I did not know that the Iranian theocratic and autocratic dictators chewed gum.I thought it was Khat.Or were you referring to Trump ?If so, who are the 'sycophantic supporters and spineless, self-interested business backers'.Not the Labour Party we know for sure. Glad to see you are beginning to appreciate the true complexity of the Middle East conflict and it cannot be summed up just by the glib placard slogan "Israelis evil:Arabs virtuous".Whatever Mr Ainsworth and the West Putney Iranian Solidarity Group might think.But Muslims are obviously very family orientated to the extent I read that with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei now choosing his 70 virgins in the afterlife, his son Mojtaba Khamenei will replace him as Iran’s new supreme leader.Less nepotism in the Beckham family 😉🤮I await publication of the popular voting figures with interest.And their analysis by John Curtice and Owen Jones.Or even your good self !

John Hawkes ● 16d

Philippe Sands talk is a tour de force; not only does he provide a clear background to the evolution of international rules post WW2 and the challenges that were mounted, but more importantly he provides much needed hope that this system will not be defeated or cast aside. The world is much more  complex than some gum-chewing, swaggering autocratic leaders and their sycophantic supporters and spineless, self-interested business backers appreciate. Mighty stuff indeed!

Gerry Boyce ● 16d

"A tribunal judge ruled that his deportation would contravene Article 8 since his child didn’t like foreign chicken nuggets."So the media claimed. However:- "The widely reported story that a criminal was allowed to stay solely because his child didn't like foreign food was a simplification of a more complex, but ultimately overturned, tribunal decision regarding the "unduly harsh" threshold for deportation under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)."But certainly a large-scale waste of time. By British courts and media.

David Ainsworth ● 16d

Yes, you are right. A judge ruled that the Afghan criminal had to serve his sentence in France, though his legal team had argued that deportation would amount to torture under Article 3. However the case of the Albanian criminal has been going on for a year and has still not been resolved.  A tribunal judge ruled that his deportation would contravene Article 8 since his child didn’t like foreign chicken nuggets. A senior judge then overturned this ruling but the case is still under review. This case demonstrates at the very least that regardless of whether European judges actually get involved, their interpretation of the Convention influences the British judiciary.

Steven Rose ● 17d

Seems not:-"Afghan rapist who said French prison cells were too small will be deportedAbdul Ahmadzai to serve five-year sentence in France after escaping to UK on small boatTelegraph ReportersPublished 10 October 2025 An Afghan man who escaped to the UK after being convicted of raping a child in France will be extradited despite claiming that his prison cell there would be too small... "

David Ainsworth ● 17d

Philippe Sands remarked that there are currently no cases pending  against the UK at the European Court of Human Rights, implying that the furore over the Convention on Human Rights is entirely misplaced and indeed confected. This is disingenuous. The fact is that British courts have been conditioned to comply in advance with extreme interpretations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on freedom from torture and the right to family life given by activist European judges. The result is that it is now almost impossible to deport illegal migrants or foreign criminals who appeal on the basis that their human rights would be undermined by deportation.  For example, one criminal escaped deportation by arguing that French prison cells are smaller than British ones, so deportation to France would amount to torture. Another successfully argued that if he were deported to Albania he would be deprived of the right to family life because his child wanted to stay in England where he could eat chicken nuggets. Even Keir Starmer recognises that this is a problem, which is why that he has proposed disapplying or modifying certain provisions of the Convention. Yet Philippe Sands glossed over this issue.Opinion polls consistently show that illegal immigration is an important issue for voters. It is dangerous to assume that the opinions of politically motivated judges in Geneva should take precedence over the wishes of the British people.

Steven Rose ● 17d

I suppose Sands is unlikely to attract a mauvais pensant crowd of right wingers. I rather suspected you would take issue with much of what he said. I find his books such as East West Street fascinating and moving in equal measure. His later books on renegade Nazis are great examples of detailed research and passionate commitment. I met him very briefly last year, talked to him about my trips to Lviv/Lemberg and he recommended an excellent cafe, a beautiful example of pre First World War Viennese style. Which examples are there of the ECHR flouting the will of the British people, or even any decisions of British courts?  I am deeply dubious of “the will of the people” as a concept. Opinion polls show constantly shifting opinions and preferences and the will of the people too often turns out to be a projection of a commentator’s strongly held views rather than a reflection of majority opinion in the country as a whole.

Jonathan Callaway ● 17d

You may understand it as you wish, naturally."I suppose I should be flattered that you feel the need to comment on any post I put on the Forum"I have to ignore some. I might even have accepted some.

David Ainsworth ● 17d

I suppose I should be flattered that you feel the need to comment on any post I put on the Forum, whatever the subject, but if you are going to quote the Sermon on the Mount, at least quote it in the proper context. An admission on my part that I may be unfair to Philippe Sands hardly amounts to a hypocritical denunciation of others by someone who never considers his own flaws, which is what is meant by the words‘Who beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye and considerest not the mote that is in thine own eye?’

Steven Rose ● 17d

"Perhaps I am being unfair, Jonathan"Eye, meet mote.

David Ainsworth ● 17d

Perhaps I am being unfair, Jonathan, but I saw the whole event as a bit of a ‘smugfest’ in which a successful international lawyer tells a bien pensant left of centre audience how lawyers and judges like him are helping to preserve our civil liberties and ensure that ghastly warmongers like Trump and Netanyahu will get their comeuppance.In my opinion both of these justifications are debatable. The European Convention on Human Rights, far from being a guarantor of our civil rights, which in any case have existed in this country for centuries, has been used by activist judges to flout the will of the British people in regards to immigration. And the categorisation of leaders like Trump and Netanyahu as criminals under international law is an excuse for doing nothing to counter the threat from enemies who themselves have no respect for law or democracy..

Steven Rose ● 17d

I'm glad you tuned in, Steven.  I thought he was very careful to avoid directly political statements.  If he overtly criticised certain parties it was because of their actions as seen in the light of international law.  Obviously he opposes those who would do away with our membership of the ECHR, for example, a policy pursued by both the Tories and Reform.The Chagossians are split - some oppose, some support the draft treaty.If the rule of law and an international rules-based system have any meaning left, then of course it is the judges who will get to decide specific cases.  And they, as in any other court, can only deal with the facts as presented to them.  Some countries do not engage with the ICC for example, so if cases are brought against them they remain either undefended or simply criticised and ignored from afar.International law is on the defensive in today's world and that is no doubt why he tries to articulate a powerful defence.  The major powers ignore it when it suits them.  Maybe that has always been the case but what is the solution?  Do you dismantle the whole apparatus and replace it with pure might-is-right power politics, as the US administration clearly prefers, or do you try to devise a viable alternative, if it can be found and agreed on?I'm not a lawyer but I prefer the current system, imperfect as it obviously is - because the alternative looks like the impunity and immunity he argues against.

Jonathan Callaway ● 17d

I overlooked the fact that Philippe Sands gave his lecture before the current attack on Iran, but I suspect that this conflict would only reinforce his view that both Trump and Netanyahu should face trial at the ICC.

Steven Rose ● 18d

"Sands somewhat disingenuously omitted to mention that the Chagossians themselves are opposed to the deal."The Chagossian community is not united in its view of the UK-Mauritius deal. While many high-profile activists and groups strongly oppose it, others have welcomed the agreement as a significant milestone.

David Ainsworth ● 18d

I watched Philippe Sands’ lecture upon your recommendation, Jonathan, but I was not particularly impressed. Here are some observations:1) The whole event was clearly political with overt criticism of Trump, Netanyahu and the Conservatives.2) In his account of the Chagos agreement, Sands somewhat disingenuously omitted to mention that the Chagossians themselves are opposed to the deal.3) Sands, like many of his colleagues (e.g. Lord Hermes, Keir Starmer) appears to believe, not so much in the rule of law as the rule of lawyers and judges, whose opinions he elevates into divine edicts. For example, in his discussion of the European Convention on Human Rights, which he said had been drafted by British lawyers, he failed to explain that the judges of the European Court have recently interpreted the Convention in ways never envisaged by the original signatories and sometimes at variance with the will of democratically elected governments.4) He appears to regard international law as an agreed set of rules. Unfortunately this is by no means the case. Yes, everyone agrees that certain crimes such as genocide, the deliberate targeting of civilians, the use of rape as a weapon of war and so on, are evil and must be punished. But even for these crimes justice is often victors’ justice. He referred to the Nuremberg trials where the Nazi leaders were rightly condemned for their terrible crimes. But what about the fact that around half a million German civilians were killed in Allied air raids and up to a million German women were raped by Soviet troops, crimes which the judges of Nuremberg never considered. However in respect of other crimes under international law, such as waging a war of aggression, there is little agreement at all. Sands appears to believe that Trump and Netanyahu should be tried at the ICC for the attack on Iran. Many people would disagree with that, not least thousands of Iranians in Teheran.

Steven Rose ● 18d

I expect that the rights of a colonised people, whose roots are quite recent (c.1783), would count for little against the genuine needs of the great eternal United States of America to dominate an area where it is threatened by malign actors.I expect that is what some might say.

David Ainsworth ● 18d

The lecture is over an hour long and full of interesting perspectives on the future of international law in an age of 'might-is-right' politics.One point Sands makes about the as yet unratified treaty with Mauritius is that it does allow for the return of the Chagossians to all the islands, bar Diego Garcia itself. I am not sure it is as cut and dried as that, as it depends on the goodwill of the Mauritians, but nevertheless it is in the treaty.But you (Steven, anyone) should listen to it all to get the full scope of the issues he addresses.  Listening does not imply full consent to everything you hear but some of it might cause a listener to think, ah yes that's a good point.  Sometimes it is good to hear views you might not completely agree with because even in this polarised world issues are rarely black and white, there are always shades of grey.

Jonathan Callaway ● 19d

I don’t think it is virtue signalling to point out the contradiction between  handing over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius in order to ‘decolonise’ while ignoring the wishes of the colonised people, the native Chagossians. While I have not listened to Philippe Sands’ lecture on international law, I listened to him at some length on the radio trying to defend the government’s deal with Mauritius when he failed to mention the rights of the inhabitants.

Steven Rose ● 19d

No, Michael, he much prefers virtue signalling whilst decrying it anywhere else he imagines he detects it.

Richard Carter ● 19d

Why don't you listen to the lecture and then give us your view?

Michael Brigo ● 19d

My question, of course , was ironic. I heard Philippe Sands on the radio justifying handing over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. His argument was that if Britain held onto the islands it would be in breach of ‘international law’, given an advisory judgment by a panel of judges at the ICH and a vote at the UN. Paradoxically Philippe Sands is worried that Britain might be failing in a duty to ‘de-colonise’ the Chagos Islands but shows no concern for the native Chagossians, who having been colonised by the British now face colonisation by the Mauritians. Did he offer any justification for ignoring the wishes of 5he Chagossians in his lecture?

Steven Rose ● 20d

The very same one.  His take on the Chagos Islands saga is in his lecture.

Jonathan Callaway ● 20d

Is this the Philippe Sands, Jonathan, who was recently given Mauritian citizenship as a reward for helping Mauritius to acquire possession of the Chagos Islands, a territory over which they have a dubious claim, against the wishes of the native Chagossians? In this case he appears to have elevated a non-binding judgment by anti-colonialists judges of the ICJ  (who have no jurisdiction over a Crown Dependency) into International Law, which he (along with Lord Hermes and Keir Starmer) believes is more important than the human rights of the people who were unjustly banished from their homes sixty years ago.

Steven Rose ● 20d