As seductive as certain perspectives of international law may appear to those who disagree with the outcome of the interpretative exercise conducted by this Court in the contempt judgment, sight must not be lost of the proper place of international law, especially in respect of an application for rescission. The approach that my Brother adopts may be apposite in the context of an appeal, where a court is enjoined to consider whether the court a quo erred in its interpretation of the law. Although it should be clear by now, I shall repeat it once more: this is not an appeal, for this Court’s orders are not appealable. I am deeply concerned that seeking to rely on articles of the ICCPR as a basis for rescission constitutes nothing more than sophistry.
I am not a great fan of Mr. Roberts and have written on this Blog about his unfortunate defamation case, but I suspect he is correct when he predicts that the liberal white establishment is going to pull the book to pieces for all the wrong reasons.
Myburg conclude his “review” as follows:
One oddity of the book is that very little of it is taken up with documenting and elucidating Mbeki’s own views, which do not seem to be of particular interest to the author. It is divided instead between “a theoretical dogfight in ideological outer space” (as Rian Malan put it) and vindictive attacks on Mbeki’s critics and opponents. At one stage Roberts writes (p. 125) that The Discourses by Niccolò Machiavelli’s are what really “illuminates Mbeki’s statesmanship.” Yet, in that work Machiavelli advised:
I hold it to be a proof of great prudence for men to abstain from threats and insulting words towards any one, for neither the one nor the other in any way diminishes the strength of the enemy; but the one makes him more cautious, and the other increases his hatred of you, and makes him more persevering in his efforts to injure you.
“It is the duty”, Machiavelli continued, “of every good general or chief of a republic, to use all proper means to prevent such insults and reproaches from being indulged in by citizens or soldiers.” This is advice the presidency has clearly chosen to ignore. By supporting this project, in the way that they did, the presidency were clearly hoping to buttress Mbeki’s position, both morally and politically. Yet they may find that this book – which manages to direct “harsh sarcasms” against so many different people – has precisely the opposite effect intended.