Western University administration response to student encampments inconsistent with international law
Published in the NB Media Co-op
(*artwork: ‘Order in the court’ by Incé Husain)
On May 29th, Western University’s President and Vice-Chancellor Alan Shepard released a public statement addressing the divestment demands of the student encampments for human rights in Palestine.
Since May 8th, Western University students have maintained a “liberated zone” on campus filled with tents, human rights slogans, protests, vigils, teach-ins, and cultural celebrations. Students vow to maintain it until Western University’s administration ceases its 33.6 million dollar investment in Israel’s occupation of Palestine and publicly condemns the occupation. Meetings between students and administration have been unproductive since.
The latest administration response rejected students’ divestment demands.
The response states:
“There are also roles (universities) do not - and should not - play… universities have historically not taken up wholesale calls for boycott, divestment, and sanctions - and Western University is no different.”
This overarching reason appears to be inconsistent with international law and past decisions taken by Western University’s administration.
Four major inconsistencies are detailed here in reference to international law and past actions by Western University’s administration.
Inconsistencies in the statement relating to Western University’s finances, moral clarity, and academic policies are identified in an analysis by the student-run Western Divestment Coalition (see post: Shepard Speaks).
***
1. Stating that the violence in Palestine is “a war”
The public statement begins by calling Palestine and Israel “a war”:
“Campuses across North America have experienced heightened tensions for many months as the war in Israel and Palestine rages on.”
Using the term “war” dilutes the severity of Israel’s violence in Palestine. It denies the existence of reports by United Nations (UN) legal scholars, which have deemed the current violence to be genocide.
According to international law, a genocide is categorically different from a “war”. A war - referred to as “international armed conflict” in international humanitarian law - describes situations of intense, organized violence between two or more States. A genocide is a crime of “the most serious international concern” that describes violence intending to “destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group”; these acts include killings, inflicting bodily or mental harm, preventing new births, forcibly taking children from their families, and imposing conditions of life “calculated to bring about (the group’s) physical destruction” (see Article 6: Genocide).
Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, wrote a detailed report titled “Anatomy of a Genocide” in March 2024. It documents the astounding number of civilian killings, intergenerational trauma, and destruction of society that categorize Israel’s onslaught on Gaza as genocide:
“After five months of military operations, Israel has destroyed Gaza. Over 30,000 Palestinians have been killed, including more than 13,000 children. Over 12,000 are presumed dead and 71,000 injured, many with life-changing mutilations. Seventy percent of residential areas have been destroyed. Eighty percent of the whole population has been forcibly displaced. Thousands of families have lost loved ones or have been wiped out. Many could not bury and mourn their relatives, forced instead to leave their bodies decomposing in homes, in the street or under the rubble. Thousands have been detained and systematically subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. The incalculable collective trauma will be experienced for generations to come.”
Albanese’s predecessor, Michael Lynk, stated that Western media repeatedly ignores the severity of Israel’s violence in Palestine and thereby contributes to the continuation of Israel’s onslaughts. This dismissal - echoed in Shepard’s statement through use of the term “war” - persists despite extensive human rights reporting on Palestine, which Lynk calls “the best documented occupation and human rights crisis in the world.”
***
2. Stating that “universities do not take stances on political issues”
The public statement continues:
“...with few exceptions throughout history, universities do not take unilateral stances on political or social issues… universities have historically not taken up wholesale calls for boycott, divestment, and sanctions – and Western University is no different… our investment policy is driven not by political motives or any institutional position on particular global affairs.”
This statement is categorically false on two accounts.
First, universities have historically taken political stances. This includes Western University, which took a strong stance on South African apartheid in 1985, and more recently, on the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022.
A 1985-1986 report from the President’s office stated a decision to divest from the apartheid in South Africa, indicating that its investment policies have been driven by global affairs:
“After soliciting submissions from the University community… the Board accepted that the University direct that its operating and endowment funds not be invested in any Canadian firms that are active in South Africa”.
A 2022 statement from Western University’s administration expressed unequivocal solidarity with Ukraine during the Russia-Ukraine war, indicating that it has taken unilateral stances on political issues:
“Western University joins the world in responding with shock and outrage at the aggression and unprovoked violence in Ukraine, at the hands of Putin’s government. We stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine against this war and all unjust and unprovoked acts of war.”
Second, all individuals involved in maintaining Western University’s investment policy are bound by international law.
Article 1 of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, titled ”The Court”, states that the Court “shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern”. Thus, contrary to Shepard’s statement, Western University’s investment policy is legally required to be driven by global affairs when those global affairs fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
The “global affair” relating to the unfolding genocide in Palestine falls under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. On January 26th, the Court issued an order to halt the violence in Palestine by Israel beneath the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:
“The Court considers that, with regard to the situation described above, Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention.” (see page 23, statement 78)
Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide extends punishment to complicity in genocide. This renders the Court’s decision legally binding on all 193 countries that are UN Member States, including Canada, to do “everything in their power to uphold their obligation to prevent genocide”. In March, the Court issued more demands on Israel’s onslaught in Gaza; on May 27, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated respect for the Court’s decision:
“The (Court’s) proposals are binding and we expect everyone to follow them as a matter of international law.”
As a Canadian institution, this order from Trudeau includes Western University.
Thus, Shepard’s statement does not appear compatible with international law - specifically, Article 1 of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court - by stating that Western University’s investments are “not driven… by global affairs” as they are legally bound to be.
***
3. Stating that divestment will have “limited to no impact on the issues at hand”
The public statement then reads:
“...many experts have argued that (divestment) would have limited to no impact on the issues at hand… divestment is nowhere near the best way Western can impact the current situation in Palestine and Israel.”
As stated previously, individuals sustaining Western’s investment policies are bound by international law. The “issues at hand” lie beneath the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Thus, Western University’s administration and the “experts” it has consulted do not have the legal authority to comment on “the best way Western can impact the current situation in Palestine and Israel”. These recommendations are and have been made by the Court, which legally binds all 193 countries that are UN Member States, including Canada, to do “everything in their power to uphold their obligation to prevent genocide”. This order extends to individuals, as stated in Article I of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: “the Court shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern.”
***
4. Stating that Western University’s “most valuable contribution as a university is to support excellence in teaching, learning and research”
The administration letter states:
“As with any important issue the world is facing, our most valuable contribution as a university is to support excellence in teaching, learning and research, and to create an environment where dialogue, debate and discovery can thrive… Western establishes and maintains academic partnerships around the globe because it furthers knowledge and makes the world a better place.”
The inconsistencies in this statement exactly echo those outlined in the previous statement.
As stated previously, individuals sustaining Western’s investment policies are bound by international law. The current “issue the world is facing” lies within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Thus, it appears inconsistent that Western University’s administration defines its “most valuable contribution as a university”. These recommendations are and have been made by the Court, which legally binds all 193 countries that are UN Member States, including Canada, to do “everything in their power to uphold their obligation to prevent genocide”. This order extends to individuals, as stated in Article I of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: “the Court shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern.”
***
In summary, the reasons Shepard gives for refusing to divest 33.6 million dollars from occupation are completely inconsistent with international law. The Court has issued an order on the case of Palestine and Israel; all persons are legally required to adhere to this order - to do “everything in their power to uphold their obligation to prevent genocide” - under the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. ♦
The content of this article was proofread by a legal scholar to ensure its accuracy with reference to international law.
A modified version of this article appeared in The NB Media Co-op on June 11th, 2024: