Compaq discussed on The Tel Aviv Review

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

That's wrong you've given this term to the public the public are going to use it and frankly if the public use it in a way slightly different or even significantly different from how lawyers intend bad luck on the lawyers at some stage you've got to be able to accommodate both understandings that would you do expect the legal round to be somewhat removed from popular sentiments unlike the media will politics i mean what happens when okay it's one thing if they understand it in important to promote that understanding but what if like all sorts of popular sentiments start effecting the legal processes well you then your question is mildly tendentious suggesting that the public should be able to rule the law and as you will know lighting for somewhere in my book a natural maybe elsewhere i dennis sherri how to that view because the law is the same to the people the people who served with the law now if i can come back to the other example before i returned to genocide the other example is warcrimes banded art as a term whenever it suits p one way or the other and what is a war crime mean well or warcrime overdue this is an oversimplification is capable of comprehension by application of the term that appears any in i international beneath red cross documents in terms of proportionality and said that that the order republican on the sounds almost patronizing of the ordinary public the nonspecialist public can have some concept of a conflict that has this on lax proportionality the of a response that lacks proportionality so it's not actually in impossible for reasonably compaq's or very complex legal concepts to have a sufficient understanding in the general reasonably educated public to estimate that little valid and the problem with genocide is that it has always been one step too complicated i think for general use.

Coming up next