Volume 45, February 2008

Virtual Roundtable

Kathleen Cavanaugh
Lecturer, Irish Centre for Human Rights, National University of Ireland

The question that has been posed here today – a question concerning the interplay between human rights organisations and the Israeli Supreme Court  lends itself to two distinct narratives.  One narrative suggests that engagement with a state body (even if by proxy) confers legitimacy.  The other, by contrast, argues that such engagement does not legitimize the state body but rather highlights the legal lacunae between the court’s arguments (and often its subsequent decision) and international legal norms. 

The argument that engaging the Israeli Supreme Court allows justice to be done with due process  ‘virtually’ achieved – has merit.  Having created this illusion, NGOs are left to engage in a ‘virtual’ discussion on the question of human rights.  Within this legal space, international legal norms are stretched and a process of the politicization of law (grounded in a necessity defense) unfolds. In order to compete, NGOs must often ignore the most compelling legal avenues offered by international law and instead engage with arguments proffered by the state (as the recent case on cuts to the fuel and electricity in Gaza highlights).   

Having accepted that the space for argument is, at best, compromised, and at worse, corrupt, NGOs and other advocates are now asking: is it worth it?  My answer is yes, engagement with the Israeli Supreme Court is worth it, but my reasoning is posited less from the prospective of what can be achieved and more from the understanding of what could potentially be lost.  NGO engagement forces the court, even in this most limited space, to engage with international law and, more importantly, to have its engagement (and decisions) documented.  Decisions that fall short of compatibility with international law are exposed in this space. This lacuna then becomes part of the historical record, providing a forensic account of violations that can, in the transitional phase, address questions of accountability.