 |
| Pix credit here |
One of the more interesting issues of the current stage of development of speech an speech rights touches on the meaning of rights. The word has caught the iaginaton of global masses thatnow invest the term with a range of meanings. Within that forest of meaning it might be worth while considering two generative aspects of the meaning if rights.
The first is internal to the person vested with those rights--in this sense it may reasonably refer to the protection of the doing, performing being, or saying or believing of something. It is, in this sense, aligned with notions of protections of a power to say, speak, perform, believe and the like. Rights may also revolve around the range of those actions or undertakings that a person might take with another object--property rights, for example, or contract rights in a more conditional sense. One is protected--by law, social, religious, or cultural norms--in the being, doing, exploitation, or speaking something. At its most intensive, persons, it speaks to the protection of an authority to do, be, or act with, for or against another human being. At its most extreme form, for example, one human may have rights over another--the master/slave or master/servant relation (the former now formally obsolete, the latter now the fountainhead of labor relations backed at times by the power of the state.
The second is consequential, external to the person asserting rights--in the sense that it protect the individual against retaliation for the exercise of those rights personal to the person exercising them. This aspect of a "right"--that is of an authority to project a right outward toward someone or thing else, whose burden, then, is to receive these expressions without response, or with a substantially limited set of rights to react. Generally, the more diffuse the project, say, of the rights to speak, the more tolerant those who may trip on these expressions ought to be. For example, if one sands on a street corner denouncing the natural rights of people born with red hair, who, as the speaker might suggest, ought to be forced to color their hair, assuming a reasonable right to occupy that space, the speaker ought to be be able to project ideas generally. But it is here that things get tricky, and most states place limits on the exercise of rights or the extent of the privileges that an authority to do, be, act, or speak, may otherwise extend. Every state is different, and contextually so; the United States tends to be the most protective--up to a point.
One might surmise that a reason, of course, is that the projection of an authority to be do, speak, etc., moves it from an internal to a dialectical act. A person might be protected in the right to believe that their neighbor ought to die their hair; but not protected should that person seek to achieve that aim by force. That is the easy case. More interesting, and relevant to this essay, is the question of the extent to which that one also has a right to react when one receives or is exposed to or is the object of actions with respect to which a person has authority to engage. In many cases, no one has the authority to make one listen, act, believe, or do something because it is urged by another. One can reve oneself from the arena of protected action; but can one also protect oneself? In some cases the answer is no. In the United States, for example, there are circumstances in which people are meant to put up with such authority to express or do, where the actions are otherwise especially protected (employment, political speech, etc.) Beyond that, it is possibel to suggest that just as a person is vested in a right to believe and project belief, action, etc., a person also has the right to avoid such projections; and where those actions also give rise to threats to position, advantage, norms and the like, to also project and take countermeasures to the extent permitted by law.
The issues are complicated; they become more so when people tied in some way to international organizations, and in the course of their mandate, so the same. Francesca Paola Albanese, the United Nations Human Rights Council “Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967,” has for some time made her opinions about her mandate, well known. She has also sought to convert her findings and conclusions from her own work into action items. To that end she has been speaking, acting, and doing what she can to convince those with authority to take her work seriously, to accept its implications, and to act on them in the way she might suggest. That is fair. She is neither the first nor the last UN special procedure that has taken this journey. Most shine for an instant and then are absorbed within the institutional memory of the aggregated work of special procedures from the beginning to the end of time. But sometimes they irritate; and sometimes irritation produces countermeasures.
Those counteractions--and counterspeaking come from President Trump general in the form of Executive Order 14203 (February 2025), and more specifically from the exercise of authority by Secretary Rubio (Sanctioning Lawfare that Targets U.S. and Israeli Persons) on the basis of the interpretation of the actions required to be undertaken as counterspeaking, acting and doing to what the Special Rapporteur has herself been doing for some time. Apparently, the special mechanism crossed a line when she began, in the opinion of the State, to threaten economic enterprises which are nationals of that state.
She has recently escalated this effort by writing threatening letters to dozens of entities worldwide, including major American companies across finance, technology, defense, energy, and hospitality, making extreme and unfounded accusations and recommending the ICC pursue investigations and prosecutions of these companies and their executives. We will not tolerate these campaigns of political and economic warfare, which threaten our national interests and sovereignty. (Sanctioning Lawfare that Targets U.S. and Israeli Persons)
This the Special procedure was well within her rights to do; but the State was also well within its rights to protect its own interests. Both may draw on international law, norms, and principles; both interpret them in substantially irreconcilable ways. Neither ought to be forced to be or remain silent and inactive in the face of the assertion of authority by the other. But both will have to live the the consequences.
The actions of Secretary Rubio, at the President's direction, certainly would be within the authority of private persons--to refuse to engage, to engage furiously, to join with or develop strong communities against whatever it is the Special Rapporteur is thinking, believing, doing, etc. Can a State react with equal protective intent? The answer is likely yes. There have been many examples--MENA States and China refusing to allow members of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to enter their States, or barring entry of the UNHCHR. States may forcefully engage with whatever actions, beliefs or measures international institutional officials, however connected to the institution, offer up for public consumption and institutional action. In the end, these are political acts, to be sure; and State officials bear the political consequences of these choices. But that is also fair. And it reflects a practice that is not unique to the United States.
The full txt of Secretary Rubio's Sanctioning Lawfare that Targets U.S. and Israeli Persons and President Trump's EO 14203 follow below. One ought to expect that more will follow as the political battle around which this is merely its expression, will continue uncooled.
Today, I am imposing sanctions on Francesca Paola Albanese, the United Nations Human Rights Council “Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967,” pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order 14203, “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court.” Albanese has directly engaged with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in efforts to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel, without the consent of those two countries. Neither the United States nor Israel is party to the Rome Statute, making this action a gross infringement on the sovereignty of both countries.
The United States has repeatedly condemned and objected to the biased and malicious activities of Albanese that have long made her unfit for service as a Special Rapporteur. Albanese has spewed unabashed antisemitism, expressed support for terrorism, and open contempt for the United States, Israel, and the West. That bias has been apparent across the span of her career, including recommending that the ICC, without a legitimate basis, issue arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
She has recently escalated this effort by writing threatening letters to dozens of entities worldwide, including major American companies across finance, technology, defense, energy, and hospitality, making extreme and unfounded accusations and recommending the ICC pursue investigations and prosecutions of these companies and their executives. We will not tolerate these campaigns of political and economic warfare, which threaten our national interests and sovereignty.
The United States will continue to take whatever actions we deem
necessary to respond to lawfare, to check and prevent illegitimate ICC
overreach and abuse of power, and to protect our sovereignty and that of
our allies.
Albanese is being designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(ii)(A) of Executive Order (E.O.) 14203.
Executive Order 14203 of February 6, 2025
Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emer-
gencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title
3, United States Code,
I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find
that the International Criminal Court (ICC), as established by the Rome
Statute, has engaged in illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America
and our close ally Israel. The ICC has, without a legitimate basis, asserted
jurisdiction over and opened preliminary investigations concerning personnel
of the United States and certain of its allies, including Israel, and has
further abused its power by issuing baseless arrest warrants targeting Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Former Minister of Defense Yoav
Gallant. The ICC has no jurisdiction over the United States or Israel, as
neither country is party to the Rome Statute or a member of the ICC.
Neither country has ever recognized the ICC’s jurisdiction, and both nations
are thriving democracies with militaries that strictly adhere to the laws
of war. The ICC’s recent actions against Israel and the United States set
a dangerous precedent, directly endangering current and former United States
personnel, including active service members of the Armed Forces, by expos-
ing them to harassment, abuse, and possible arrest. This malign conduct
in turn threatens to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States
and undermines the critical national security and foreign policy work of
the United States Government and our allies, including Israel. Furthermore,
in 2002, the Congress enacted the American Servicemembers’ Protection
Act of 2002 (22 U.S.C. 7421 et seq.) to protect United States military per-
sonnel, United States officials, and officials and military personnel of certain
allied countries against criminal prosecution by an international criminal
court to which the United States is not party, stating, ‘‘In addition to exposing
members of the Armed Forces of the United States to the risk of international
criminal prosecution, the Rome Statute creates a risk that the President
and other senior elected and appointed officials of the United States Govern-
ment may be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.’’ (22 U.S.C.
7421(9)).
The United States unequivocally opposes and expects our allies to oppose
any ICC actions against the United States, Israel, or any other ally of the
United States that has not consented to ICC jurisdiction. The United States
remains committed to accountability and to the peaceful cultivation of inter-
national order, but the ICC and parties to the Rome Statute must respect
the decisions of the United States and other countries not to subject their
personnel to the ICC’s jurisdiction, consistent with their respective sovereign
prerogatives.
The United States will impose tangible and significant consequences on
those responsible for the ICC’s transgressions, some of which may include
the blocking of property and assets, as well as the suspension of entry
into the United States of ICC officials, employees, and agents, as well as
their immediate family members, as their entry into our Nation would be
detrimental to the interests of the United States.
I therefore determine that any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain,
or prosecute protected persons, as defined in section 8(d) of this order,
constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security
and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national
emergency to address that threat. I hereby determine and order:
Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United
States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter
come within the possession or control of any United States person, of
the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported,
withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
(i) the person listed in the Annex to this order; and
(ii) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General:
(A) to have directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate,
arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that
person’s country of nationality;
(B) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material,
or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of,
any activity in subsection (a)(ii)(A) of this section or any person whose
property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(C) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to
act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property
or interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to
the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or
licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding
any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date
of this order.
Sec. 2. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of
articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by,
to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property
are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair
my ability to address the national emergency declared in this order, and
I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.
Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1(a) of this order include:
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services
by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in
property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services
from any such person.
Sec. 4. The unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United
States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section
1 of this order, as well as immediate family members of such aliens, or
aliens determined by the Secretary of State to be employed by, or acting
as an agent of, the ICC, would be detrimental to the interests of the United
States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as immigrants
or nonimmigrants, is hereby suspended, except where the Secretary of State
determines that the entry of the person into the United States would not
be contrary to the interests of the United States, including when the Secretary
of State so determines, based on a recommendation of the Attorney General,
that the person’s entry would further important United States law enforce-
ment objectives. In exercising this responsibility, the Secretary of State shall
consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters related to admis-
sibility or inadmissibility within the authority of the Secretary of Homeland
Security. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1
of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject
to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency
Economic Powers Act Sanctions). The Secretary of State shall have the
responsibility for implementing this section pursuant to such conditions
and procedures as the Secretary of State has established or may establish
pursuant to Proclamation 8693.
Sec. 5. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the
Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the
President a report on additional persons that should be included within
the scope of section 1 of this order.
Sec. 6. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading
or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibi-
tions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth
in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 7. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct
of the official business of the Federal Government by employees, grantees,
or contractors thereof.
Sec. 8. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term ‘‘person’’ means an individual or entity;
(b) the term ‘‘entity’’ means a government or instrumentality of such
government, partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group,
subgroup, or other organization;
(c) the term ‘‘United States person’’ means any United States citizen,
permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United
States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including a foreign
branch, subsidiary, or employee of such entity), or any person lawfully
in the United States;
(d) the term ‘‘protected person’’ means:
(i) any United States person, unless the United States provides formal
consent to ICC jurisdiction over that person or becomes a state party
to the Rome Statute, including:
(A) current or former members of the Armed Forces of the United
States;
(B) current or former elected or appointed officials of the United States
Government; and
(C) any other person currently or formerly employed by or working
on behalf of the United States Government; and
(ii) any foreign person that is a citizen or lawful resident of an ally
of the United States that has not consented to ICC jurisdiction over that
person or is not a state party to the Rome Statute, including:
(A) current or former members of the armed forces of such ally of
the United States;
(B) current or former elected or appointed government officials of such
ally of the United States; and
(C) any other person currently or formerly employed by or working
on behalf of such a government;
(e) the term ‘‘ally of the United States’’ means:
(i) a government of a member country of the North Atlantic Treaty Organi-
zation; or
(ii) a government of a ‘‘major non-NATO ally,’’ as that term is defined
by section 2013(7) of the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act of
2002 (22 U.S.C. 7432(7));
(f) the term ‘‘immediate family member’’ means a spouse or child;
(g) the term ‘‘alien’’ has the meanings given to the term in section 101(a)(3)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3)); and
(h) the term ‘‘foreign person’’ means a person that is not a United States
person.
Sec. 9. For those persons whose property and interests in property are
blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence
in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds
or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures
to be taken pursuant to section 1 of this order would render those measures
ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective
in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need
be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section
1 of this order.
Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary
of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules
and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by
IEEPA as may be necessary to implement this order. The Secretary of the
Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these func-
tions within the Department of the Treasury. All executive departments
and agencies of the United States shall take all appropriate measures within
their authority to implement this order.
Sec. 11. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary
of State, is hereby authorized to submit recurring and final reports to the
Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with
section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA
(50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).
Sec. 12. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise
affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency,
or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and
subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party
against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers,
employees, or agents, or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 6, 2025.
No comments:
Post a Comment