The freedom of religion is being threatened under the pretence of animal welfare.
Rebuttal to the Article: “THE IGNORANCE OF TRUMP ENVOY GREENBLATT” by Col. Res. Shaul Arieli, published on August 9, 2019 by HAARETZ.com
Senior Fellow Dr. Cynthia Day Wallace challenges the many misquotes, misrepresentations and misinterpretations by Israeli author Shaul Arieli critiquing U.S. presidential envoy Jason Greenblatt’s address to the UN Security Council. If untruths (or half truths, which are in fact untruths) are allowed to go unchallenged, and the distortion of international law to continue unchecked, a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict risks being seriously impeded.
The Israeli Products Labelling Controversy – Imposing Politically-motivated Opinions in the Name of Law
The Opinion of AG Hogan at the ECJ in the Psagot Winery case is scrutinized. Conclusion: the AG’s Opinion seems more an expression of political belief than a correct legal opinion based on a sound interpretation and fair application of international law.
President Trump’s recent proclamation recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights has attracted much criticism. The prohibition on the use of force to acquire territory is an important foundation of modern international law, but it does not mean that wars of aggression cannot have territorial consequences.
President Donald Trump’s decision to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has been subject to intense international scrutiny. Amid the debate, what does the law suggest? Read here what Professor Gregory Rose of the School of Law at the University of Wollongong, Australia, wrote about it.
The status of Jerusalem is one of the main legal issues in the debate on Israel and its relationship to the Palestinian Arabs. The speech of the American President, Donald Trump, and the fierce reactions it provoked, as well as the recent resolutions of the UN General Assembly (GA) illustrate this. In order to address…
In this article the author, Dr. Cynthia Day Wallace, demonstrates cogently that the 1967 lines are not “borders” under international law. Therefore, this word should not be used to create and perpetuate the impression that Israel has illegally transgressed the borders of another State.
The British Mandate: Defining the Legality of Jewish Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria under International Law
“Facts are stubborn things” said John Adams, the second President of the United States. This paper debunks pervasive but false narratives that — try as they might — cannot alter the “stubborn” legal facts, history and evidence that lead to an inevitable conclusion: international law supports the legality of Jewish sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.…
Israel’s borders and territorial scope are a source of seemingly endless debate. Remarkably, despite the intensity of the debates, little attention has been paid to the relevance of the doctrine of uti possidetis juris to resolving legal aspects of the border dispute. Uti possidetis juris is widely acknowledged as the doctrine of customary international law…
… this is how Dr. Matthijs de Blois, Senior fellow of thinc., characterises the report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, the Canadian law professor S. Michael Lynk. The Report has the clear objective to heighten the pressure of the “international community” on Israel.