XPost: uk.legal
BY ALFRED DE ZAYAS
The continued practice of branding other countries and peoples
collectively guilty for past or ongoing crimes has not abated. The
imposition of collective punishment in the form of mass expulsions,
blockades and unilateral coercive measures[1] entails retrogression in
terms of civilization and human rights.
From the moral and religious perspective, the concept of collective
guilt contravenes the imperatives of forgiveness and reconciliation,
the brotherhood and sisterhood of the human family[2], and the hope
for a modus vivendi in friendship and international solidarity.
From the historical perspective, collective guilt has been a
ubiquitous weapon in the cognitive warfare against perceived or
imagined adversaries. Among the bogus justifications for holding whole populations responsible for the crimes of their governments is the
idea that democracy in those countries actually functions and that the
people have accepted or even supported the crimes imputed to their
governments. But can this be substantiated? Over the ages minority
groups have also been accused of the most abstruse crimes, e.g.
causing disease or poisoning wells. Europe has a long history of
incitement against different peoples, including Jews, Roma, Sinti,
Slavs, “Untermenschen”, Germans, Serbs, Afghans, Muslims, Africans,
migrants, etc.
Collective guilt frequently uses scapegoats, simplifying the root
causes of problems and then assigning guilt to a particular ethnic,
linguistic or religious group. Yet, collective punishment has also
been directed against “heretics”, e.g. during the Albigensian crusades
of the 12th-13th centuries against the Cathars in France, where
punishment tended to be indiscriminate. Among its many massacres, we
recall the extermination of the civilian population of the city of
Beziers on 22 July 1209, where it is reported that the papal envoy
Arnaud Amalric said “kill them all, God will know his own”. “Caedite
eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.” As many as 14,000 persons may
have been killed, including the faithful and non-heretical Christians
who had unwisely refused to flee the city.
Many pogroms against Jews occurred in Europe during the Middle Ages,
the Renaissance period, the 18th-century Enlightenment. Such mass
violence took place not only in tsarist Russia, Ukraine and Poland[3]
during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but also in Western
Europe, where Jews were marginalized, excluded, dehumanized,
demonized, blamed for “desecration of the host,” the black death of
the 14th century and for other pandemics[4], and subjected to mass
expulsion.
The collective-guilt mindset is generated not only by governments but
is aided and abetted by superstition and sometimes instrumentalized by chauvinistic groups and organizations. It builds on popular myths and
caters to latent fears and insecurities in society. The incitement to
hatred is waged before, during and after armed conflicts. Indeed, many
wars have been preceded by deliberate and systematic incitement to
hatred of the adversary. Hitler’s war on the Jewish people was
largely based on fake news and fake history, on a caricature of the
Jewish people. Alas, many Germans allowed themselves to be
indoctrinated. But many did not.
The Jews of the Warsaw ghetto suffered untold indignities until they
rebelled in May 1943. At its height, there were 460,000 Jews in the
ghetto, but gradually the Jews were transported to extermination
camps, notably Treblinka. The Nazis were merciless in their
destruction of the ghetto and the punishment of the Jewish insurgents.
Such hatred invariably breeds more hatred hatred.
Collective guilt can turn against any group of people. Perpetrators
can become victims of a reverse collective guilt syndrome. After the
end of the Second World War, the Germans were held collectively guilty
for Nazi crimes. Revenge was overwhelming: 14 million ethnic Germans
were expelled from their 700-year homelands in East Prussia,
Pomerania, Silesia, East Brandenburg, Bohemia, Moravia, Hungary and
Yugoslavia, resulting in at least two million deaths[5], some who were
direct victims of violence, rape and even torture, and those who lost
their lives as a result of the expulsion, which was accompanied by
exposure to inclement weather, cold, lack of food and medicine.[6]
This was the greatest mass expulsion known in European history, and it
was collective punishment on a grand scale. There was no attempt to
establish any personal guilt, millions of anti-Nazis were expelled on
the sole criterion of being German. A purely racist measure backed up
by decisions taken by Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt already at the conferences of Teheran and Yalta, and concretized in the Potsdam
Protocol of 2 August 1945.
The British publisher and human rights activist Victor Gollancz
described the expulsion as follows: “If the conscience of men ever
again becomes sensitive, these expulsions will be remembered to the
undying shame of all who committed or connived at them … The Germans
were expelled, not just with an absence of over-nice consideration,
but with the very maximum of brutality.”[7]
Robert Hutchins, President of the University of Chicago, deplored the
crimes being committed in the name of the victorious allies,
commenting “The most distressing aspect of present discussions of the
future of Germany is the glee with which the most inhuman proposals
are brought forward and the evident pleasure with which they are
received by our fellow citizens …”[8]
One would have thought that the enormity of the crimes committed
against Germans in the years 1945 to 1949, just because they were
Germans, would have created a precedent to abolish forever the horror
of mass population transfers. Yet, in the 1990s the world witnessed
the obscenity of ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, which gave the
Security Council the opportunity to establish the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Even the judgments of
the ICTY did not end our addiction to collective guilt paradigms.
Whereas in the 1940s and 1950s the Germans were universally seen as collectively guilty for the Nazis, now at the beginning of the 21st
century, many people perceived the Serbians as collectively guilty for
Slobodan Milosevic.
Alas, the spirit of collective guilt and collective punishment has not disappeared from the world. We see collective punishment against
entire civilian populations in the blockades imposed against people
considered unilaterally by some countries as dangerous or hostile. One
of the worst expressions of collective hatred is the imposition of
unilateral coercive measures ostensibly against governments, but in
reality against peoples. Such unilateral coercive measures constitute
a new form of warfare, hybrid warfare, non-conventional warfare –
which kills as viciously as bullets. The principal practitioners of
UCMs are the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union.
Such UCMs have been imposed on countries opposed to the unipolar world
demanded by the US. To make matters worse, those countries that impose
UCMs dare invoke human rights in order to justify the unjustifiable.
It is no less than a sacrilege, a blasphemy, to falsely accuse the
victims of committing human rights violations, in order to render the
UCMs more palatable by claiming that the measures are intended to
bring about a democratic change of government.
Legal Perspectives
In 1975, long before the phenomenon of ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia,
I published an article in the Harvard International Law Journal,
outlining the necessity to adopt a convention banning mass
expulsions[9].
I explained that from the legal perspective, the concepts of
collective guilt and collective punishment are contrary to general
principles of law[10], and essentially negate the fundamentals of the administration of justice and the rule of law, which stipulate the
principles of human dignity, integrity of the person, and equality of treatment. In particular, collective punishment violates articles 14
and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
which stipulate the presumption of innocence[11], the requirement of
trial and judgment by an independent tribunal and the prohibition of discrimination.
The artificial concept of collective guilt is used to justify
collective punishment[12], as, for instance, the destruction of
private property or the forced transfer of populations[13]. although
collective punishment is specifically prohibited in Article 50 of the
1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions on Land Warfare, which stipulates
“No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon
the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they
cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.”[14]
Article 46 stipulates: “Family honor and rights, the lives of
persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and
practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.“
Similarly by virtue of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of
1949:
“ART. 33. — No protected person may be punished for an offence he or
she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise
all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage
is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property
are prohibited.”[15]
Such war crimes must be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to
Article 147 of the Convention.[16]
All of this was highly relevant in the prosecutions before the ICTY of
Serbian and Croatian commanders for mass expulsions of Serbians
carried out by Croats in the Krajina and mass expulsion of Bosnians
and Croatians carried out by Serbs. Unfortunately, there was very
little discussion about the fundamental principles of human dignity
and the right of all peoples to self-determination.
The mass expulsion of ethnic Germans 1945-49 as a precedent for the
mass expulsions of Palestinians from Gaza and Occupied Palestine
The right to one’s homeland is a human right.[17] The right to
national self-determination, today recognized as jus cogens
(peremptory international law), of necessity must embrace the right to
one’s homeland, because self-determination cannot be exercised if one
is driven from one’s homeland. Moreover, the right to one’s homeland
is a precondition to the exercise of most civil, political, economic,
social and cultural rights.[18] The Germans of Bohemia and Moravia
(frequently referred to as Sudeten Germans) whose ancestors had
resided there for seven centuries, were denied self-determination in
1919, notwithstanding their repeated appeals to the Paris Peace
Conference, and notwithstanding the recommendations of the American
expert, Harvard Professor Archibald Cary Coolidge, who at Paris
proposed attaching the territories in question to Germany and Austria
in 1919. Whereas the Treaties of Versailles, St. Germain and Trianon
promoted the self-determination of Poles, Czechs and Slovaks, this was
done at the expense of denying self-determination to Germans and
Magyars. Judged by today’s standards, their claim to
self-determination was comparable to that of the Kurds, the Tamils,
the Kosovars, the Abkhazians, the Southern Ossetians, the Crimeans,
the Sahraouis, the Southern Cameroonians, the Bubis of Bioko/Fernando
Po, the Sudanese and many others.
Although the right to national self-determination was not part of
peremptory international law in 1945, the expulsion of 14 million
ethnic Germans was already illegal by standards of the then-applicable
norms of international law, and the treatment of the expelled Germans doubtlessly entailed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The
Hague Regulations on Land Warfare appended to Hague Convention IV of
1907 were applicable during World War Two. Articles 42-56 limit the
powers of occupying nations and guarantee protections to resident
populations, in particular the privacy, honor and rights of the
family, as well as private property (Article 46). Collective
punishments are forbidden (Article 50). Thus, any mass expulsion
implies a major violation of The Hague Regulations. Moreover, pursuant
to the Martens Clause[19] which formulated minimal standards of
warfare as early as 1899, “cases not included in the Regulations”
would necessarily have to be judged in the light of the “laws of
humanity”, which means that expulsions of civilians, accompanied by
mass killings and complete expropriation of property would undoubtedly
be illegal.[20] The Martens Clause was then –as the later Nuremberg
War Crimes Tribunals illustrated– a binding principle of international
law. Therefore, those responsible for the expulsion of the Germans
cannot invoke the absence of specific international law on population
transfers in order to justify the expulsion. In his EthicsBaruch
Spinoza observed that “nature abhors a vacuum”. International lawyers
agree that there cannot be a “legal black hole” when it comes to the over-arching principles of human rights law. Up until December 9,
1948, international law didn’t contain a specific and explicit ban of
genocide. Yet nothing could make the Holocaust compatible with
international law, even in the absence of a positive norm of black
letter law.
The mass expulsion of 14 million Germans cannot be interpreted as a
form of legal reprisal, for wartime reprisals can be undertaken only
under very narrow and well-defined conditions subject to principles of proportionality that underlie the international legal order. These
conditions were not met at the time of the earlier expulsions of
ethnic Germans up until May 8, 1945. However, the bulk of the
expulsion took place after the end of the war, making the legal
concept of reprisal a priori inapplicable to this event. – The
expulsions furthermore violated customary international law as well as
treaty obligations protecting minority rights assumed by Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia in 1919. The denial of the
right to return of German refugees similarly constituted violations of international law.
The verdict of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg
rightly condemned the expulsions perpetrated by the Nazis against
Poles, mainly from the Posen and Pommerellen (“Westpreußen”) regions
and against Frenchmen from the Alsace as war crimes and crimes against humanity. International law has per definitionem universal
applicability, and therefore the expulsions of ethnic Germans by
Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia, measured against the
same standard, similarly constituted war crimes and crimes against humanity.[21]
Today international law is very explicit in prohibiting expulsions.
Article 49 of Geneva Convention IV of August 12, 1949, respecting the protection of civilians in times of war, forbids forced resettlement.
Article 17 of the second additional protocol of 1977 expressly
prohibits expulsions even in local, sovereign domestic matters. In
peacetime, expulsions violate the UN Charter, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948, the Human Rights
Covenants of 1966 and the International Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Likewise, they breach the
Fourth Protocol of the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Basic Freedoms, Article 3 of which reads: “1) No one shall
be expelled, by means either of an individual or of a collective
measure, from the territory of the State of which he is a national. 2)
No one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the
state of which he is a national”; and Article 4 which stipulates
“collective expulsions of aliens is prohibited.” In war and peace
expulsion and deportation represent crimes within the purview of
international law. In accordance with Article 8 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court of 1998 expulsions constitute war crimes,
and according to Article 7 they constitute crimes against humanity. In
some cases they can amount to genocide pursuant to Article 6.
Under some conditions, expulsion and deportation can qualify as
genocide. According to Article II of The UN Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide dated December 9,
1948, genocide is defined by acts or actions intended to destroy a
certain national, ethnic, racial or religious group in whole or in
part, by killing members of these groups or by imposing unendurable
living conditions or by committing offenses such as mass expulsions.
In the light of the “intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or
religious group” and the mental and stress accompanying expulsions,
they can be categorized as genocide.
This intention to wipe out specific populations was the goal of both
Edvard Benes in Czechoslovakia and Josip Broz Tito in Yugoslavia, a
fact sufficiently documented in their speeches and decrees. This
mental prerequisite qualifies the expulsion of the Germans from these
countries as genocide. This opinion is strongly supported by
prominent professors of international law including Felix Ermacora and
Dieter Blumenwitz.[22] The genocidal character of the expulsions is underscored by the racial targeting of the victims, independent of any
personal guilt or responsibility. Indeed, the ethnic Germans were
expelled on the basis of their ethnic origin and not because of their
personal conduct. As a consequence, there is an obligation for
everyone (“erga omes”) not to recognize the consequences of the
expulsion. The pseudo-principle of the “normative power of facts” is inapplicable in the case of genocide or after a crime against
humanity. Here the general principle of law (ICJ Statute, article 38)
ex injuria non oritur jus (out of a violation of law no right can
emerge) takes precedence.
The UN General Assembly, in its Resolution 47/121 of December 18,
1992, categorized “ethnic cleansing”, which was then taking place in Yugoslavia, as genocide. This Resolution was confirmed and
strengthened by many subsequent resolutions.[23] Even the ICTY
categorized certain acts of “ethnic cleansing” in the former
Yugoslavia as genocide, namely the massacre at Srebrenica in 1995. In
its judgment in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina vs. Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia of February 26, 2007, the International Court
of Justice confirmed that the massacre of Srebrenica constituted
genocide. On the basis of this judgment it can be asserted that the
expulsion of the Germans, accompanied by hundreds of thousands of
murders and rapes, necessarily constituted genocide, since the
Russian, Polish, Czechoslovak, Hungarian and Yugoslav politicians and
military commanders manifested their intent to destroy, “in whole or
in part”, the German ethnic group “as such”. Moreover, the manner of implementation of the “population transfer” was considerably more
severe and inflicted more casualties than the “ethnic cleansing”
perpetrated in the former Yugoslavia. Certainly the killings that
accompanied the Brünn Death March, the massacres at Nemmersdorf,
Metgethen, Allenstein, Marienburg, Saaz, Postelberg, Aussig, Prerau,
Filipova and several thousand other places in addition to the massive
number of deaths in the camps at Lamsdorf, Swientochlowice,
Theresienstadt, Gakovo, Rudolfsgnad and in several hundred other camps
others constituted crimes against humanity and were manifestations of
genocidal intent.
Conclusion
As the Israeli war on Gaza progresses, it appears more and more that
the intent is to ethnically cleanse the area, to force the 2.4 million population of Gaza to migrate to Egypt or Saudi Arabia. The UN Secretary-General has called for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza. The
High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk is in the Middle East
trying to mediate.
Collective guilt does not exist. Collective punishment is contrary to
every system of law. Let us hope that the Palestinians and Israelis
will find a modus vivendi, and that all sides will abandon all
thoughts of collective guilt of Palestinians for the crimes committed
by Hamas, and the thought of collective guilt of all Israelis for the
crimes committed since 1947 against the Palestinian people by
successive Israeli governments, and the crimes being committed today
by the Netanyahu regime.
What humanity most urgently needs is a change of mindset, a
recommitment to the spirituality of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, a readiness to break the vicious circle of reprisals and counter-reprisals.
In his drama Piccolomini Friedrich Schriller reminds us
Das eben ist der Fluch der böse Tat, dass sie fortzeugend Böses muss gebähren[24].
(That is the curse of evil deeds, that they continue generating evil.)
Notes.
[1] See UN General Assembly Resolution 77/214, UN Human Rights Council Resolution 52/13. See also the report by Professor Jeffrey Sachs and
Marc Weisbrot.
https://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/venezuela-sanctions-2019-04.pdf
[2] Matthew, chapters 5-7.
Chapter 6, verses 14-15 “For if you forgive other people when they sin
against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you
do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your
sins.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:14-15&version=NIV
John chapter 8 “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on do not
sin anymore.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208&version=EHV
Christel Fricke (ed.), The Ethics of Forgiveness: A Collection of
Essays, Routledge, 2011.
[3]
https://www.timesofisrael.com/20-years-before-the-holocaust-pogroms-killed-100000-jews-then-were-forgotten/
“ From 1918 to 1921, more than 1,100 pogroms killed over 100,000 Jews
in an area that is part of present-day Ukraine.” Richard Arnold,
Russian Nationalism and Ethnic Violence: Symbolic violence, lynching,
pogrom, and massacre, Routledge, London, 2016; Edward Judge, Easter
in Kishinev: Anatomy of a Pogrom, New York University Press, 1995;
Robert Weinberg, “The Pogrom of 1905 in Odessa: A Case Study”, in
Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, John D. Klier
and Shlomo Lambroza, eds., Cambridge, 1992. I. Michael Aronson,
Troubled Waters: The Origins of the 1881 Anti-Jewish Pogroms in
Russia, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1990.
[4] Yonathan Glazer-Eytan, Yonatan, “Jews Imagined and Real:
Representing and Prosecuting Host Profanation in Late Medieval
Aragon”. In Franco Llopis, Borja; Urquízar-Herrera, Antonio (eds.).
Jews and Muslims Made Visible in Christian Iberia and Beyond, 14th to
18th Centuries. Leiden, 2019. Albert Winkler, “the Medieval Holocaust:
the approach of the Plague and the Destruction of Jews in Germany
1348-1349” Federation of East European Family History Societies, vol.
13 (2005), pp. 6–24.
[5] Gerhard Reichling, Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen, Bonn,
1986. A. de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam, Routledge, 1977, table on page
xxv, A Terrible Revenge, Macmillan, 1994, pp. 155-156. . Statistisches Bundesamt, Die deutschen Vertreibungsverluste, Wiesbaden 1958.
[6] A. de Zayas; 50 Theses on the Expulsion of the Germans, Verlag
Inspiration, Berlin 2012..
[7] Victor Gollancz, Our Threatened Values, 1946, p. 96,
[8] Time, 21 May 1945, p. 19.
[9] A de Zayas, “International Law and Mass Population Transfers”, in
Harvard International Law Journal, vol 16, pp. 207-258. This article
was subsequently published in Spanish and German translations.
[10] Statute of the International Court of Justice, article 38.
https://www.icj-cij.org/statute
[11] See Article 6 of the 1977 Second Additional Protocol to the
Geneva Conventions of 1949: “2. No sentence shall be passed and no
penalty shall be executed on a person found guilty of an offence
except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by a court offering the
essential guarantees of independence and impartiality. In particular:
(a) the procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without
delay of the particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall
afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights
and means of defence;
(b) no one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of
individual penal responsibility…”
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/apii-1977/article-6?activeTab=undefined
[12]
https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/population-displacement/
[13] The study on the rules of customary International Humanitarian
Law published by the ICRC in 2005 prescribes that: Rule 129:
(a)Parties to an international armed conflict may not deport or
forcibly transfer the civilian population of an occupied territory, in
whole or in part, unless the security of the civilians involved or
imperative military reasons so demand.
(b)Parties to a non-international armed conflict may not order the
displacement of the civilian population, in whole or in part, for
reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians
involved or imperative military reasons so demand.
Rule 130 provides that in connection with an international armed
conflict, States may not deport or transfer parts of their own
civilian population into a territory they occupy.
Rule 131 prescribes that in case of displacement in the context of an international or a non-international armed conflict, all possible
measures must be taken in order that the civilians concerned are
received under satisfactory conditions of shelter, hygiene, health,
safety, and nutrition and that members of the same family are not
separated.
Rule 132 states that in international and non-international armed
conflicts, displaced persons have a right to voluntary return in
safety to their homes or places of habitual residence as soon as the
reasons for their displacement cease to exist.
Rule 133 finally prescribes that the property rights of displaced
persons must be respected at all times and all places. Population
movements sometimes lead individuals outside their own country. In
such cases, they are protected by international refugee law.
[14]
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/hague-conv-iv-1907/regulations-art-50?activeTab=undefined
[15]
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.33_GC-IV-EN.pdf
[16] ART. 147. — Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates
shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed
against persons or property protected by the present Convention:
wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological
experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to
body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful
confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to
serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a
protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in
the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction
and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and
carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
[17] Otto Kimminich, Das Recht auf die Heimat, 3rd edition, Bonn 1989
and Die Menschenrechte in der Friedensregelung nach dem zweiten
Weltkrieg, Berlin 1990. Alfred de Zayas, Heimatrecht ist
Menschenrecht, Munich 2001.
[18] On August 6, 2005, the former UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights, Dr. Jose Ayala Lasso, said in Berlin: “…the right to one’s
homeland is not merely a collective right, but it is also an
individual right and a precondition for the exercise of many civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights.” See A. de Zayas,
Die Nemesis von Potsdam pp. 404-406.
[19] This particular achievement in international law, later cited in
several international conventions as well as judgments by
international courts, was conceived by the Russian Diplomat of
German-Estonian heritage, an international legal authority, Friedrich
Fromhold Martens (1845-1909).
[20] The Martens Clause stipulates: “Until a more complete code of
the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it
expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations
adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as
they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from
the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.”
[21] In his Memoirs, Konrad Adenauer writes: “Misdeeds have been
committed loathsome enough to stand alongside those committed by the
German National Socialists.”
[22] Dieter Blumenwitz, Rechtsgutachten über die Verbrechen an den
Deustchen in Jugoslawien 1944-1948, Munich 202. Felix Ermacora, Die Sudetendeutsche Fragen. Rechtsgutachten. Munich 1992.
[23] GA Resolutions Nos. 48/143 of December 1993, 49/205 of December
1994, 40/192 of December 1995, 51/115 of March 1997, etc.
[24] Die Piccolomini, V,1 / Octavio Piccolomini
Alfred de Zayas is a law professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy
and served as a UN Independent Expert on International Order 2012-18.
He is the author of twelve books including “Building a Just World
Order” (2021) “Countering Mainstream Narratives” 2022, and “The Human
Rights Industry” (Clarity Press, 2021).
https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/11/10/collective-guilt-and-collective-punishment/
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
