Waffenlieferungen als Staatsräson?
Rüstungsexporte nach Israel dürfen nicht genehmigt werden. Das ist der Tenor eines Urteils des niederländischen Berufungsgerichts in Den Haag vom 12. Februar diesen Jahres, das der niederländischen Regierung aufträgt, den Export von Bauteilen für F-35 Kampfjets nach Israel zu untersagen. Auch deutsche Kriegswaffenexporte nach Israel verstoßen gegen völkervertragsrechtliche Normen. Sie sind außenpolitisch bedenklich und sollten im Einklang mit nationalem Außenwirtschaftsrecht nicht aufrechterhalten werden.
Continue reading >>
South Africa v Israel: A Solomonic Decision as “Constructive Ambiguity”
In its wise Order of 26 January 2024, the ICJ managed to make a virtue out of a necessity: Israel was not prohibited from continuing its combat operations but was reminded of its strict compliance with international humanitarian law and its obligation to avoid genocide. At the same time, the ICJ reiterated the requirement to respect the most fundamental rights and the core of humanitarian law to all warring factions. Despite still essentially being a court for inter-state disputes – it put the individual, the human being, at the centre. Henceforth, the ICJ’s order of provisional measures is a Solomonic decision at its best and a further step towards the “humanization of international law”.
Continue reading >>
Measuring with Double Legal Standards
Less than two hours after Israel had closed its pleadings, the German Government released a press statement, announcing its intent to intervene as a third party under Article 63 of the Statute of the ICJ (ICJ Statute). Therefore, it can be assumed that Germany did not take sufficient time to conduct a comprehensive assessment prior to its decision. At all costs, it sought to be perceived as being on Israel’s side. Germany’s decision may not appear startling given that it had previously intervened in both genocide proceedings against Russia (Ukraine v Russia case) and Myanmar (Rohingya case). However, in the latter case, Germany joined Gambia in upholding a purposive construction of Article II Genocide Convention, which would seem to present a serious obstacle to support Israel. Thus, this contribution investigates whether Germany, in its intervention in the "Genocide in the Gaza Strip case", would be able to abandon its previous submissions in the Rohingya case and instead adopt a more restrictive construction of the Article II Genocide Convention.
Continue reading >>Perils and Pitfalls of Israel´s New ´War on Terror´
Over the last weeks, we were forced to realize that the way our – i.e. German – public opinion (and politicians) react to the ruthless assault of Hamas on 7 October differs markedly from the intuitions of the broad public in the Islamic world (and large parts of the ´Global South´ in general). Whereas our media (and speeches of politicians) are full of references to Israel´s right to self-defence, the sentiments voiced on the streets in the Middle East (and publicly stated by politicians such as Turkish President Erdogan) go in the opposite direction, stress the legitimate cause of the Palestinians and term the Hamas as a movement of national liberation. Clearly there is a legitimate cause in the fight of Palestinians against endless occupation. But do ends really justify means, at all price, as the praise for Hamas seems to suggest? A closer look to the normative underpinnings of current international law confirms the intuition that this is more than doubtful, as a thorough analysis of the (intensely debated) provisions on the status of movements of national liberation in IHL tells us.
Continue reading >>Die Gräueltaten der Hamas, Israels Reaktion und das völkerrechtliche Primat zum Schutz der Zivilbevölkerung
Angesichts der durch Kämpfer der Hamas und des Palästinensischen Islamischen Jihad (PIJ) in Israel am 7. Oktober 2023 und den Folgetagen begangenen Gräueltaten, und vor dem Hintergrund der historischen Verantwortung Deutschlands, hat sich die Bundesregierung und die deutsche Politik einhellig mit Israel solidarisiert und dessen Recht auf Selbstverteidigung betont. Deutlich leiser sind in der deutschen politischen Debatte hingegen bislang die Stimmen, die betonen, dass Israels Reaktion gleichwohl an die Regeln des humanitären Völkerrechts gebunden ist und Drittstaaten wie Deutschland eine Verpflichtung zukommt, die Verletzung zwingender Regeln des Völkerrechts zu verhindern. Hier soll erläutert werden, welche humanitär-völkerrechtlichen Vorkehrungen relevant sind und was deutsche Politik beitragen kann, um die Austragung von Gewalt sowie die Leiden der Zivilbevölkerung im akuten Konflikt und künftig einzuhegen.
Continue reading >>Moral Absolutism in the Wake of Terrorism
In the light of the terrorist attack perpetrated by Hamas against innocent civilians in Israel on October 7th, some contend that “The imperative to protect human dignity only applies absolutely if it applies universally, and it only applies universally if it applies absolutely.” In the face of evil, there is no room for relativism. Hamas’s deliberate attack against innocent civilians is absolutely wrong. Therefore, it should be universally condemned. I agree with the above conclusion. However, I wonder how a universal recognition of an absolute duty of respect for human dignity can help solving the existential conflict confronting Israelis and Palestinians. Ideally, a two-state solution proposed by the international community can be seen as a reasonable and fair compromise. Nevertheless, the reality on the ground is different. This blog post explores the downstream consequences - and hurdles - of moral absolutism in times of war, terror, and existential crisis.
Continue reading >>Solidarität mit Israel, aber kein Blankoscheck
Die Taten der Hamas sind in einer ausführlichen Erklärung israelischer Völkerrechtler/-innen, die auch der Verfasser unterschrieben hat, als das benannt worden was sie sind: völkerrechtliche Kernverbrechen, möglicherweise sogar ein gegen die jüdische Bevölkerung Israels gerichteter Genozid. Unter Völker(straf)rechtlern dürfte das weitgehend konsentiert sein, vor allem hierzulande müssen wir uns allerdings selbstkritisch die Folgefrage stellen, wie weit unsere Unterstützung für den militärischen Gegenschlag Israels gehen kann.
Continue reading >>Solidarity with Israel, but no Blank Check
The actions of Hamas have been called in a detailed declaration drafted by Israeli international lawyers, also signed by this author, for what they are: core crimes under international law, possibly even amounting to genocide directed against the Jewish population of Israel. This should be beyond dispute among international (criminal) lawyers. Nonetheless, especially in Germany we have to critically ask ourselves the follow-up question of how far our support for Israel’s military counterattack can go.
Continue reading >>
