Introduction
Human rights have always been controversially considered by people. Historical epochs presented different views of countries upon the standards of the human rights they kept to, and therefore certain norms were imposed on the citizens of those countries. For example, in the Ancient World the institution of slavery was an ordinary phenomenon which was thought not to violate any human rights and freedoms, as far as slaves were not considered to be human beings. Also, racial discrimination has recently been an ordinary thing for the human society and only the several recent decades brought substantial positive changes in the situation. One of the most prominent roles in this process was played by the implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN, by the development of the national and intercultural awareness of various nations of the world, and by the introduction of the Universal Jurisdiction. Accordingly, this paper will focus on the possible issues caused by the international force of laws on “the crimes against the Jewish people” (Sprinzak, Yosef, David Ben-Gurion & Pinchas Rosen, p. 154).
Main body
To begin with, it is necessary to consider the essence of the concept of human rights. The first point that is understood by people on hearing this concept is that equality of rights and opportunities should be granted to all people irrespective of their racial, sexual, etc. belongings and social positions. However, the concept under consideration is much wider that the above stated freedoms. To avoid the any possible kind of ambiguity and misunderstanding in this respect, the United Nations Organization adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December, 10, 1948 (Landorf, Hilary, and Martha Fernanda Pineda, p. 322).
Drawing from this declaration, the concept of the “crimes against the Jewish people” can be viewed as completely grounded. The same can be said about the possible introduction of the concept of the “crimes against the Black people” that an African country might think possible to launch. To understand these issues better, it is necessary to consider the basic ideas of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. First of all, the declaration under consideration provides the general statements about the equality of all people on Earth: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” (UN, Article 1) Drawing from this, crimes against any particular ethnic group or the whole humanity are outlawed, and the idea of “crimes against the Jewish people” implemented by the Israeli Government in 1950 is viewed as a reasonable one.
Moreover, this statement can be referred to the crimes against Black people or any other ethnic group discriminated in a certain country. Also, the further provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights detail the conditions under which human rights are violated, and the former coincide with those stipulated in the Israeli Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” (UN, Article 5)
Further on, the idea of “crimes against the Jewish people”, as well as the one of “crimes against black people”, relies much upon the Universal Jurisdiction as one of the most updated concepts of the modern judicial system. For example, according to one of the basic documents of the Universal Jurisdiction, the “Princeton Principles”, “the following offenses can be tried by any court in the world without regard to where the crime occurred or who committed it: piracy, slavery, war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, genocide, and torture.” (Hawkins, p. 347) These provisions again coincide with the ones used by the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1945 and by the Israeli Government in 1950 in their rulings about the crimes against humanity on the whole, and crimes against the Jewish people in particular. Nevertheless, some “states have not yet adopted a norm of universal jurisdiction for genocide, crimes against humanity, and other human rights abuses, but some are moving in that direction”, and this fact can cause ambiguity in international court rulings, concept interpretations and possible outcomes of the decisions made according to the Universal Jurisdiction (Hawkins, p. 347). Also, the vague formulations used by the Israeli Government in the law prohibiting crimes against the Jewish people can be used by the opponents of this law to challenge its adequacy. As well, in case if an African state launches the law on “crimes against black people”, the same issues can be faced. The following passages discuss the possible controversy in case if the concepts similar to “the crimes against the Jewish people” are implemented in other states, for example in African ones (Weisburd, p. 225).
As it is obvious from the above discussion, the concept of “the crimes against the Jewish people” was first coined during the 1945 Nuremberg Tribunal Sittings concerning the criminals of the World War II. This concept was derived from the idea of crimes against humanity as the most serious ones to be punished by the death penalty. The Jews, as the nation that suffered most of all during the Nazi occupation of Europe, insisted on the admittance of Holocaust against them, and introduced the law providing the criminal responsibility for the denial of the fact of the Holocaust. In 1950, after the creation of the independent state of Israel, the Government of the country adopted the law operating with the concept of “the crimes against the Jewish people”. The opening paragraph of the law stated that “a person who has committed one of the following offences…is liable to the death penalty” (Sprinzak, Yosef, David Ben-Gurion & Pinchas Rosen, p. 154)
Moreover, the law mentioned defines “the crime against the Jewish people” as an act that can be included in one of the further listed offences including “killing Jews, causing serious bodily or mental harm to Jews, placing Jews in living conditions calculated to bring about their physical destruction; imposing measures intended to prevent births among Jews, forcibly transferring Jewish children to another national or religious group; destroying or desecrating Jewish religious or cultural values and inciting to hatred of Jews.” (Sprinzak, Yosef, David Ben-Gurion & Pinchas Rosen, p. 154) Black people have also been subject to severe discrimination, and physical destruction, carried out by whites in the countries of Europe and in the USA. Any African state might desire to defend black people in the same manner as Israel did. Although, the first sight at these provisions provides the clear view of what should be considered as the crime against the Jewish people and punished by the death penalty, the further consideration poses serious problems concerning this law, as well as any similar law of the same kind.
First of all, the statements that seem clear and exact might become the subject of numerous interpretations. Not in all cases these interpretations might be correct, but certain people violating the law could use them to avoid the criminal responsibility. For example, the first point defining the crime against the Jewish people, concerns killing of Jews. However, it is ambiguous as for what kind of crime it will be if a Jew is killed for some other reason that racial hatred. Also, it is unclear who defines whether this or that particular crime was committed with the racial or some personal motivation. The same can be said about crimes against black people, as racial hatred is not the only motivation for people to kill others. Accordingly, the implementation of the concepts “the crimes against the black people” might cause considerable ambiguity, especially if they are executed in conformity with the Universal Jurisdiction.
Further on, the implementation of such laws in the Universal Jurisdiction might lead to the confusion of the legislative and judicial norms of different states. For example, if a person commits “the crime against the Jewish people” in Israel, he or she is tried according to the Israeli laws. However, the international nature of this law provides for the possibility of trying the person who committed this crime abroad. Accordingly, the laws of the country where the crime was committed might differ from the Israeli ones, and the trial procedure might become an insolvable issue for all the parties concerned. The same is the situation with crimes against black people as far as international jurisdiction is not yet adjusted to the uniform demands of the laws considered. Black people are still discriminated, for example in employment opportunities, educational and career prospects. Social discrimination, often resulting in violence and killings of blacks, is also a serious issue.
Conclusion
Thus, the answer to the question whether it is a good idea to rely on the concept of “the crime against the Jewish people” is negative. The drawbacks of the modern judicial systems of many countries, as well as the imperfection of the law itself, do not allow the modern society to be sure about the effectiveness of such a law. As for the law on crimes against black people, it is also not an adequate idea because the definitions of such crimes will always be challenged, and such laws will cause more controversy than bring solutions to the issues of human rights.
Works Cited
Hawkins, Darren. “Universal Jurisdiction for Human Rights: From Legal Principle to Limited Reality.” Global Governance 9.3 (2003): 347+.
Landorf, Hilary, and Martha Fernanda Pineda. “Learning History through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Social Education 71.6 (2007): 322+.
Sprinzak, Yosef, David Ben-Gurion & Pinchas Rosen. “Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 5710 – 1950.” Crimes against the Jewish people, crimes against humanity and war crimes. № 64 (1950): 154 – 158.
UN. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” 2009 UN.org. Web.
Weisburd, A. Mark. “International Law and the Problem of Evil.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 34.2 (2001): 225.