Something odd about this to my eye:
The UN tribunal investigating the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has ruled that acts of terrorism can be prosecuted under international law. The decision will have far-reaching legal implications...
Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity can already be prosecuted in an international court. Now terrorism is set to be added to the list of crimes which can be prosecuted under international law, thanks to a groundbreaking new court ruling.
The ruling was made last week by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), which was set up to investigate the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in a bomb attack. It would mean that groups that commit terror attacks, regardless of where in the world they occur, could henceforth be prosecuted in international criminal courts and would no longer be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the judiciary of the country in question.
It's odd to me because of the logical tension between 'far-reaching legal implications' in the first paragraph and 'crimes against humanity can already be prosecuted in an international court' in the second. As I read things, terrorism must surely qualify - already qualify - as a crime against humanity. It isn't just me who thinks so; Human Rights Watch is on record as taking the same view. Good for that ruling of the UN Tribunal, in any case. Perhaps the far-reachingness of the implications is just by way of its consolidating a legal norm that is in the process of taking shape.
