A judge in the Jerusalem District Court yesterday ruled that a US Supreme Court decision of 2004 is enforceable in Israel; the Supreme Court decision requires the Palestinian Authority to pay compensation of $116 million dollars for two terrorist murders. The Jerusalem judge rejected the PA's plea that this could potentially bankrupt it, if similar suits for compensation were to follow:
How can one accept the claim [he said] that a legal ruling should not be enforced because it might hurt the perpetrator financially?
These two legal decisions should be good news to those who favour the development and strengthening of international law. Pursued as a policy by political movements, the terrorist targeting of civilians is certainly a crime against humanity (see Part 2, Article 7 and the report here). And for crimes against humanity there is universal jurisdiction; so US, Israeli and other national courts may legitimately rule in cases such as this one. There doesn't seem to be a down side. Unless, perhaps, you're one of those partisans of international law in the habit of making excuses for terrorism. (Thanks: PT.)
