Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating the Investigations: A Comment on the UN Committee of Experts Monitoring of the ‘Goldstone Process’

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Is There a Court for Gaza?

  • 1443 Accesses

Abstract

The Report of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’s (‘FFMGC’) significance lies in its focus on accountability, and its explicit recommendations to this effect. Of particular importance was the conclusion that:

Government of Ireland IRCHSS Scholar, PhD Candidate, Irish Centre for Human Rights, National University of Ireland Galway. International Legal Officer, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. The views presented in this paper are solely those of the author in his personal capacity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Report of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, 25 September 2009, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/12/48, para 1963. Emphasis added.

  2. 2.

    Id., para 1969.

  3. 3.

    The mandate of the Committee was renewed in September 2010.

  4. 4.

    Human Rights Council Resolution 13/9, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/Res/13/9, 14 April 2010, para 9. [See infra Document 8 in Part II].

  5. 5.

    U.N. Doc. A/HRC/15/50, 23 September 2010 (‘First Report’). [See infra Document 9 in Part II].

  6. 6.

    Human Rights Council Resolution 15/6, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/Res/15/6, 6 October 2010, para 8.

  7. 7.

    U.N. Doc. A/HRC/16/24, 18 March 2011 (‘Second Report’). [see infra Document 10 in Part II].

  8. 8.

    Human Rights Council Resolution 13/9, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/Res/13/9, 14 April 2010, para 9.

  9. 9.

    First Report, para 6.

  10. 10.

    See, First Report paras 8–16, Second Report paras 9–22.

  11. 11.

    First Report, para 64. Emphasis added.

  12. 12.

    Second Report, para 79.

  13. 13.

    Second Report, para 41. This relates specifically to those incidents involving the suspected criminal liability of the MAG.

  14. 14.

    Second Report, para 82.

  15. 15.

    Second Report, para 81.

  16. 16.

    Second Report, para 84. This finding is discussed further below, see Sect. 6.4.2.

  17. 17.

    Second Report, para 90.

  18. 18.

    Second Report, paras 87, 90.

  19. 19.

    Vis-á-vis complimentarity, the assessment of unwillingness or inability, and so on.

  20. 20.

    International Committee of the Red Cross 2005, Volume 1: Rules, Rule 158. See further, Article 146 Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 85 Additional Protocol I.

  21. 21.

    See, for example, Article 14, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Human Rights Committee, General Comment 13, 1984.

  22. 22.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, para 25.

  23. 23.

    First Report, para 29.

  24. 24.

    First Report, para 30.

  25. 25.

    Footnotes are omitted.

  26. 26.

    First Report, paras 22–25. Emphasis added.

  27. 27.

    First Report, para 24.

  28. 28.

    Velasquez Rodriguez Case, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, (Series C) No. 4, Judgment of 29 July 1988, para 177.

  29. 29.

    Ibid, para 174.

  30. 30.

    Ibid.

  31. 31.

    Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 24746/94, 4 August 2001, para 107.

  32. 32.

    International Committee of the Red Cross 2005, Volume 1: Rules, Rule 151.

  33. 33.

    See, Sect. 6.4.2.

  34. 34.

    First Report, para 32.

  35. 35.

    Bati v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 33097/96, 57834/00, 3 September 2004, paras 136–137.

  36. 36.

    Finucane v. the United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 29178/95, 1 October 2003, para 213.

  37. 37.

    Article 539(A)(a), Military Justice Law 5715-1955.

  38. 38.

    State of Israel 2010a, para 54.

  39. 39.

    Report of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, 25 September 2009, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/12/48, para 1831.

  40. 40.

    First Report, para 50.

  41. 41.

    First Report, para 10.

  42. 42.

    First Report, para 44.

  43. 43.

    Report of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, 25 September 2009, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/12/48, para 1831.

  44. 44.

    See, for example, Al-Nebari v. The Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army, HCJ 2366/05 (decision delivered on 29 June 2008).

  45. 45.

    Military Justice Law para 178(1).

  46. 46.

    Military Justice Law para 178(2), (4).

  47. 47.

    State of Israel 2010a, para 45.

  48. 48.

    First Report, para 53.

  49. 49.

    First Report, para 55.

  50. 50.

    Bati v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 33097/96, 57834/00, 3 September 2004, para 135. Emphasis added.

  51. 51.

    Report of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, 25 September 2009, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/12/48, para 1895.

  52. 52.

    Second Report, para 79.

  53. 53.

    Second Report, paras 87, 90.

  54. 54.

    Second Report, para 41.

  55. 55.

    Second Report, para 78.

  56. 56.

    Second Report, para 46.

  57. 57.

    Second Report, para 32.

  58. 58.

    Second Report, para 30.

  59. 59.

    Second Report, para 26.

  60. 60.

    See, State of Israel 2009, 2010a, b.

  61. 61.

    Second Report, para 79.

  62. 62.

    First Report, para 91.

  63. 63.

    Second Report, para 41.

  64. 64.

    Second Report, para 81.

  65. 65.

    Second Report, para 82.

  66. 66.

    See, supra Sect. 6.2.2.

  67. 67.

    Second Report, para 90.

  68. 68.

    Second Report, para 87.

  69. 69.

    Issues arising consequent to the—in this author’s view appropriate—attribution of international human rights standards to the Palestinian authorities, as non-State actors, are beyond the scope of this paper.

  70. 70.

    See the website of the Committee, here: http://www.picigr.ps/.

  71. 71.

    First Report, para 70.

  72. 72.

    Second Report, para 84.

  73. 73.

    See, supra Sect. 6.3.

  74. 74.

    Finucane v. the United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 29178/95, 1 October 2003, para 69.

  75. 75.

    See, supra Sect. 6.3.

  76. 76.

    See, supra Sect. 6.3.

  77. 77.

    Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 24746/94, 4 August 2001, para 107.

  78. 78.

    International Committee of the Red Cross 2005, Volume 1: Rules, Rule 151. See further, Article 146 Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 85 Additional Protocol I.

  79. 79.

    See, for example, Article 25 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

  80. 80.

    Human Rights Council Resolution 16/32, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/Res/16/32, 14 April 2011, para 8. [See infra Document 8 in Part II].

  81. 81.

    Security Council Resolution 1970, U.N. Doc. S/Res/1970, 25 February 2011, para 4.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

    Daragh Murray

Authors
  1. Daragh Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Law Faculty, University of Milan, Via Festa del Perdono 7, Milan, 20122, Italy

    Chantal Meloni

  2. , International Section, Lelio Basso Foundation, Via Della Dogana Vecchia 5, Roma, 00186, Italy

    Gianni Tognoni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Murray, D. (2011). Investigating the Investigations: A Comment on the UN Committee of Experts Monitoring of the ‘Goldstone Process’. In: Meloni, C., Tognoni, G. (eds) Is There a Court for Gaza?. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-820-0_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation