PASS THE ASPIRIN, PLEASE

International law meets the 21st century (YEHEZKEL DROR, Jerusalem Post, 04/03/04)

Therefore, radical innovations in international law are imperative. "Atrocious terrorism" should be defined as mass killing of civilians, included within crimes against humanity and subjected to universal jurisdiction. An unconditional duty should be imposed on states to act against atrocious terrorism, however "justified" in the view of some regimes. Concomitantly, the right of self-defense should be enlarged to include multiple measures, including preemption, taken by endangered countries to stop atrocious terrorism against their citizens. [...]

To move to individuals, the notion of human rights should be supplemented with a Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities and Duties (as proposed several times), foremost of which is avoidance of any act of atrocious terrorism and its support. This stipulation should be enforced first of all against senior decision-makers. [...]

Finally, it is necessary to establish a Global Security Tribunal with universal jurisdiction to try atrocious terrorists, their supporters, and proliferaters of instruments of mass killing. The composition of that tribunal should be based on major anti-terrorism powers; and its rules of evidence should enable conviction of the guilty while protecting the innocent, taking into account the special circumstances of sensitive security issues.

The needed international law innovations are far beyond the political capacity of the United Nations as now constituted. But they are essential for humanity to thrive over the long term. Therefore, as already proposed by Emmanuel Kant in The Eternal Peace, until the United Nations is restructured, a coalition of major powers - led by the United States, together with the European Union, China, and additional select countries reflecting main civilizations - will have to serve as pioneers of new international law norms, imposing them when diplomatic persuasion will not work. [...]

Given that such basic concepts and institutions of international law have become outmoded, Israel has no choice but to unwillingly pioneer new norms, paying the price for showing the way humanity will have to take in the face of rapidly escalating threats. This is not the ideal form for Judaism to fulfill the mission of "mending the world" and being "a light unto the nations" but an existential necessity dictated by the obsolescence of much of contemporary international law.

Oh goody, exciting new norms for abstract multilateralism. Could Professor Dror please explain why the ancient norms Israel pioneered shouldn't suffice?