Farewell to the Rules-Based Order
As political analysts debate the reasons for Trump’s victory, one contributing factor is surely the utter failure of Biden’s Gaza policies. As the US has continued to fund an Israeli war of annihilation against Gaza, the democratic ticket became a hard sell for many who care about Palestinians. Yet, Gaza has also triggered a veritable renaissance of international litigation. With Gaza destroyed and Trump in the White House, this tension may have reached a terminal point. And yet, I argue, the ghost of a rule-based order lingers in our political imagination despite its inability to shape outcomes.
Continue reading >>
Tackling Israel’s Interference with the International Criminal Court
On 8 October 2024, The Guardian reported that a criminal complaint had been filed in the Netherlands in connection with the shocking (yet unsurprising) revelations published by The Guardian, +972 Magazine, and Local Call on 28 May concerning hostile state activities targeting the International Criminal Court (ICC). The criminal complaint is both timely and viable and should lead to the expeditious opening of an investigation by the Dutch prosecution service. The political response by the Dutch and other governments of ICC States so far is insufficient to address the problem of interference with the ICC investigation in the Situation in the State of Palestine.
Continue reading >>
Apartheid or Systemic Discrimination?
This contribution argues that, reading between the lines, the expression “systemic discrimination”, which the Court referred to in para. 223 of the Advisory Opinion, was used as a synonym for “apartheid”, even though the Court did not link this description to a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, but there does not appear to be any substantial difference between apartheid and systemic discrimination. This is because the word systemic is associated with crimes against humanity which is how apartheid is defined as a crime in international law.
Continue reading >>
The ICJ Advisory Opinion and Israeli Law
This post examines the relationship between the Advisory Opintion and Israeli law with respect to the duty to distinguish between Israel and the OPT. While the Opinion requires States to distinguish between Israel and the OPT in their dealings with Israel, and to omit acts that may strengthen Israel’s hold of the Territories, calls for such distinction are a civil tort under Israeli law, and those making them can be denied entry to Israel. As a result, Israelis are unlikely to support the Opinion. This will contribute to the growing gap between the international discourse and the domestic discourse in Israel with respect to the OPT.
Continue reading >>
The Findings of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Oslo Accords and the Amici Curiae Proceedings before the ICC in the Situation of Palestine
This article focuses on the legal findings of the ICJ concerning the Oslo II Accord, and argues in favour of its relevance in deciding the jurisdictional question raised by the UK before the International Criminal Court (ICC). It also addresses whether invoking this question through a procedure of an amicus curiae during the warrant of arrest stage fits neatly within the ICC’s procedural regime, and it concludes that it does not.
Continue reading >>
Non-Recognition and Non-Assistance
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) not only made it crystal clear that Israeli occupation is illegal in every respect – by itself a challenge for Western foreign offices as they face reproaches for double standards. The Court also added a number of paragraphs detailing the legal consequences of the Advisory Opinion for UN Member States.
Continue reading >>
The Obligation of Non-recognition, Occupation and the OPT Advisory Opinion
In the OPT Advisory Opinion, the ICJ considered that Israel’s abuse of its position as an Occupying Power, through de jure and de facto annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, renders Israel’s presence in the OPT unlawful. In determining the legal consequences of this illegal presence, the Court held by a vote of 12:3, that all States are under an obligation “not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. This holding was not accompanied by any concretization in either the Advisory Opinion or any of the many declarations and separate opinions attached to it.
Continue reading >>
Limiting ‘Security’ as a Justification in the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion
While international law accepts that States may employ otherwise prohibited actions in exceptional circumstances and within certain constraints, the Advisory Opinion firmly affirms that security cannot justify illegal actions such as annexation or prolonged occupation. The rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination, cannot be compromised by security claims. The Advisory Opinion serves to limit State practices predicated upon security when those practices violate essential rights and when the security claim is based upon an illegal situation created by the very State which invokes security concerns.
Continue reading >>
Security Considerations, the Duty to End Belligerent Occupations and the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Israeli practices and policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
This contribution discusses three possible rationales for the Court’s rejection of the relevance of Israel’s security concerns: Lack of proof of serious and legitimate security concerns by Israel, the insufficiency of broad security concerns to justify the continued use of force, and the insufficiency of broad security concerns to deny realization of Palestinian self-determination. As long as international law doctrine on the duty to end a belligerent occupation despite the prevalence of serious security concerns remains contested, and as long as security conditions in the region remain extremely unstable, it is unlikely that a withdrawal will be deemed practicable
Continue reading >>The ICJ’s Treatment of Questions of Occupation in Gaza
The ICJ’s treatment of the state of occupation in Gaza is questionable. While it rightly accepted the functional approach to occupation, I doubt whether Israel was indeed capable of exercising its authority in Gaza sufficiently for its occupation to be found as having continued post-2005. The Court should have relied on Israel’s continued exercise of administrative authority vis-a-vis Gaza residents to find the existence of a state of occupation.
Continue reading >>
The Functional Approach as Lex Lata
The ICJ has de facto adopted the functional approach to occupation with regard to Gaza. The Opinion is thus a critical point in the development of the law of occupation, in that it transcends a binary approach to the question of the existence of occupation, in favour of a more nuanced approach that enables holding that a territory is occupied, but not in an “all or nothing” way. More generally, the Opinion as rejects a more restrictive approach to the question of whether occupation exists in a territory or not in favour of a more flexible approach.
Continue reading >>
The Advisory Opinion on Israel’s Policies and Practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
This post analyses the separation between jus ad bellum / in bello as arising from the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ. This separation was challenged by many States appearing before the Court, some of which implied that Israel’s policies and practices, as violations of jus in bello, rendered the occupation unlawful under jus ad bellum. The Court ultimately reaffirmed the separation with a twofold argument, namely qualifying the ‘legality of the occupation’ as a jus ad bellum question, and framing Israel’s policies and practices (prolonged occupation, annexation, and settlement policy) as violations of jus ad bellum.
Continue reading >>
The Legality of the Occupation and the Problem of Double Effect
The conflict between Israel and Palestine, or more accurately, between the two Peoples, has persisted for over a century. A tragic reminder of the unbearable costs of this conflict is the deadly October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel, and the ensuing war, which has led to horrific consequences, with thousands of Israelis and Palestinians killed, many severely injured, and extensive damage to the civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. In these circumstances, an important question arises: what role should international law and international tribunals play in mitigating the grave harm to all those involved in the conflict?
Continue reading >>
The Advisory Opinion and a Negotiated Settlement?
The accepted framework for settling the Palestine question through bilateral negotiations, in legal terms, does not survive the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024. The degree to which the Advisory Opinion catalyses a new political framework remains to be seen. But the Advisory Opinion gives the Palestinians newfound agency in shaping one.
Continue reading >>
The principle of uti possidetis juris and the borders of Israel
The principle uti possidetis juris, raised in the Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Sebutinde and according to which a new State established in formerly colonial territory inherits the former (colonial) borders is untenable in the situation of Israel. The reason is that at the time of independence Israel’s leaders accepted the principle of partition. No claim was made then or subsequently that the State of Israel inherited the borders of Mandatory Palestine and legislative acts reveal that Israel even regarded territories not within the UN Partition Plan borders as occupied territory.
Continue reading >>The 2024 ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory – An Introduction
The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the "Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem" was a groundbreaking moment in international law. It has consequences not only for Israel, but also for third States, as well as international and regional organizations, in terms of non-recognition and non-cooperation. In this blog symposium, Palestinian, Israeli, and other scholars take stock of the Advisory Opinion and its regional and global impact.
Continue reading >>Angriff im Deckmantel der Selbstverteidigung
Die Regierung der Islamischen Republik Iran feuerte am 1. Oktober 2024 Raketen auf Israel. Hierbei gab es mehrere Verletzte, ein Palästinenser im Westjordanland kam ums Leben. Der Iran beruft sich auf das Selbstverteidigungsrecht aus Artikel 51 der UN-Charta als Reaktion auf die Tötung von Führungskräften seiner sogenannten „Achse des Widerstands“ durch Israel. Damit berufen sich beide Parteien auf das Recht zur Selbstverteidigung. Doch das Selbstverteidigungsrecht einer Partei schließt gleichzeitig das Recht der anderen aus. Wer kann sich also tatsächlich auf dieses Recht berufen?
Continue reading >>
Can the Knesset dissolve itself during recess?
On July 28, 2024, the 25th Knesset entered the longest recess in its history amidst an ongoing military conflict and complex political challenges. This unprecedented situation brought to the forefront the urgent and hypothetical question of whether opposition factions in the Knesset could initiate the dissolution of the Knesset, topple the government, and return the mandate to the people. While the High Court of Justice ruling in Frij restricts convening the Knesset during recess to urgent government matters, private bills aimed at dissolving the Knesset should be an exception under certain constitutional conditions.
Continue reading >>
Was sagt das Völkerrecht zu den Pager- und Walkie-Talkie-Explosionen?
Kaum waren die Pager und Walkie-Talkies der Hisbollah im Libanon explodiert, wurde bereits gefragt: Was sagt das Völkerrecht dazu? Die breite Öffentlichkeit und vor allem die Medien erwarten eindeutige Antworten – möglichst wenige Stunden nach solch einem Ereignis wie den Pager- und Walkie-Talkie-Explosionen. Diese kann das Völkerrecht, können Völkerrechtler und Völkerrechtlerinnen jedoch nicht geben, da nicht alle Fakten bekannt sind.
Continue reading >>Keine Kontrolle der Rüstungsexportkontrolle
Der infolge des terroristischen Überfalls und Massenmords durch die Hamas ausgebrochene Gaza-Krieg wirft unentwegt auch rechtliche Fragen auf. Schon mehrfach hat sich dabei die deutsche Bundesregierung vor Gericht wiedergefunden. Als zweitgrößter Rüstungslieferant musste sich die Bundesrepublik vor dem IGH und deutschen Gerichten für die Unterstützung Israels angesichts zahlreicher Berichte über dessen völkerrechtswidrige Kriegsführung rechtfertigen. Jetzt hat das Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt im Eilrechtsschutz entschieden: Bestehende Genehmigungen für deutsche Rüstungsexporte nach Israel dürfen weiter genutzt werden. Die Entscheidung lässt inhaltlich viele Fragen offen und wirft methodisch einige weitere auf. Sie spricht grund- und menschenrechtliche Möglichkeiten an, wo keine bestehen. Und verwirft sie vorschnell, wo sie durchaus weiterführen könnten.
Continue reading >>
The Inadvertent Protagonist
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), a UN body essentially responsible for resolving inter-state disputes, has been increasingly asked to consider matters with implications for individual criminal responsibility – a predominant concern of international criminal law. In some cases, the link is direct; for instance, in the last two years, the Genocide Convention has been invoked twice on behalf of Ukraine and Gaza. Although for the ICJ, its application is a question of State responsibility, it will give rise to questions of individual responsibility in other international and domestic fora.
Continue reading >>
A War for the Tech Economy
Today, various commentators are asking about the purpose behind the pager attack and the subsequent communication device attack yesterday. The New York Times’s detailed report of the incidents announces in its title that Israel has built a “Modern-Day Trojan Horse”. The idea comes from Greek history, but perhaps a better comparison might be found in Greek myth. Prometheus stole fire from the gods. Today, Israel is attempting to develop secularized but God-like technological capabilities, at least in terms of their ability to generate surprise and change reality overnight. Yet, by discarding moral or political considerations in favor of pyrotechnics, Israel risks Prometheus’s ultimate fate: punishment.
Continue reading >>
Staatsräson vor Völker(straf)recht?
Am 20.5.2024 hat Karim A.A. Khan, der Ankläger des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs, Haftbefehle gegen den israelischen Premierminister Netanyahu und Verteidigungsminister Gallant sowie drei Hamas-Führungsfiguren in der Palästina-Situation beantragt. Die Bundesregierung argumentiert in ihrer am 9.8.2024 veröffentlichten Stellungnahme, dass Israel die echte Möglichkeit und mehr Zeit gegeben werden müsse, um selbst strafverfolgerisch tätig werden zu können. In der Stellungnahme zeigt sich eine starke, fast bedingungslose Unterstützung Israels, die einem Primat der Politik über das Recht nahekommt
Continue reading >>
The Price of Equality
Israel’s long-standing debate over ultra-Orthodox Yeshiva students conscription has reached a critical juncture in June 2024. The Israeli Supreme Court not only declared the absence of a legal basis for a broad and overall exemption for Yeshiva students but also introduced a remedy that I claim might be controversial: the suspension of state funding for Yeshivas whose students are subject to conscription but refuse to comply with it. This marks a significant shift in the Court’s approach to enforcing equality in military service and the rule of law.
Continue reading >>
Power to the People
Das am 19. Juli 2024 veröffentlichte Gutachten des IGH zu der israelischen Besatzung Palästinas ist zurecht als Zeitenwende und bahnbrechend beschrieben sowie von einer Vielzahl von UN-Experten begrüßt worden. Das Gericht gibt der Staatengemeinschaft grünes Licht, Maßnahmen wie etwa Sanktionen und den Abbruch von Handelsbeziehungen zu ergreifen. Für die EU, dem wichtigsten Wirtschaftspartner Israels, wurden bereits konkrete Vorschläge gemacht. Dabei könnten Sanktionen gegenüber Unternehmen oder gewalttätigen Siedler:innen aufgrund der etwas geringeren politischen Brisanz erfolgversprechender sein als an die israelische Regierung gerichtete Sanktionen.
Continue reading >>On Recognition
The decades-long campaign for recognition of a Palestinian state on the 1967-occupied territory meets the international system, however flawed, where it is. Its selling point is simple: an independent Palestinian state is the most attainable way, if not the only way, to restore integrity and dignity to the Palestinian people while maintaining a minimum standard of order.
Continue reading >>
Influences of the Holocaust on the Constitutional Law of Israel
The trauma of Auschwitz continues to reverberate in the collective consciousness of Israelis and manifests in Israeli laws across several primary domains. However, the primary impact of the Holocaust trauma on Israeli constitutional law has been the concerted efforts to prevent Israel from descending into a fascist, racist regime akin to Germany in the 1930s. The incorporation of the concept of Intolerant Democracy, which occupies a central role in Israeli constitutional law, was explicitly inspired by German history.
Continue reading >>
Die Zeitenwende beginnt im Nahen Osten
Nach den vielbeachteten Entscheidungen des Internationalen Gerichtshofs (IGH) über einstweilige Anordnungen im Gaza-Konflikt erweckte das Gutachten vom 19. Juli 2024 zur Illegalität der israelischen Besatzung ein verhältnismäßig geringes Medienecho. Dies steht im eklatanten Gegensatz zu seinem Inhalt. Der internationale Gerichtshof bewertete nämlich kurzerhand die gesamte israelische Besatzung des palästinensischen Gebiets, einschließlich Gaza, für rechtswidrig. Dies dürfte erhebliche völkerrechtliche, völkerrechtspolitische, geopolitische und erinnerungspolitische Konsequenzen nach sich ziehen.
Continue reading >>Giving Covenants Swords
The classical Hobbesian critique of international law famously asserts that “covenants, without the sword, are but words.” Accordingly, given Israel’s persistent non-compliance with the ICJ’s provisional measures in South Africa v. Israel, on 29 May 2024, South Africa requested “the Security Council to give effect to the Court’s judgments” under Article 41 of the ICJ Statute. This post shows why the discussions on whether the Council lacks the statutory authority to supervise and enforce the Court’s provisional measures under the ICJ Statute overlook the broader point. Namely, the Order on provisional measures is the perfect legal evidence for the Council to trigger its powers under Chapter VII and thus end the humanitarian calamity in Gaza.
Continue reading >>
Why the International Criminal Court’s Jurisdiction Doctrinally Attaches to Israeli and Russian Nationals
As the storm of ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan’s request for arrest warrants loomed and landed on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, ardent supporters of Israel within the U.S. and U.K. governments and beyond appear to have seized upon a jurisdictional objection. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is reported as saying that the “ICC has no jurisdiction over this matter.” The U.K. Foreign Secretary David Cameron is reported to have said the same thing. There is a basic flaw, though, in the treaty-based objection to the ICC jurisdiction as has been made. It ignores the nature of the mandate of international criminal tribunals as mechanisms for the effective preservation of the basic fabric of the international order.
Continue reading >>Anträge mit Sprengkraft
Am 20.5.2024 hat der Chefankläger des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs bekannt gegeben, dass er in der „Situation Palästina“ mehrere Haftbefehle gegen ranghohe politische und militärische Führungspersonen beantragt hat. Dass der Ankläger zeitgleich gegen Mitglieder der Hamas und der israelischen Regierung vorgeht, bedeutet nicht, dass er eine Terrorgruppe mit einer demokratisch legitimierten Regierung gleichsetzt. Er bringt vielmehr zum Ausdruck, dass das Völkerstrafrecht für alle Konfliktparteien gilt und bemüht sich um einen ausgewogenen und (soweit in diesem Konflikt überhaupt möglich) neutralen, zumindest entpolitisierten Ansatz. Damit wird der Grundstein für eine gleichmäßige Anwendung des Völkerstrafrechts gelegt.
Continue reading >>Why the Provisional Measures Order in Nicaragua v. Germany severely limits Germany’s ability to transfer arms to Israel
In an application before the International Court of Justice brought by Nicaragua against Germany, Nicaragua requested that the ICJ indicate provisional measures as a matter of extreme urgency with respect to Germany’s ‘participation in the ongoing plausible genocide and serious breaches of international humanitarian law and other peremptory norms of general international law occurring in the Gaza Strip’. While Nicaragua did not get any of the provisional measures requested, the request for provisional measures may nevertheless have achieved its aim of preventing Germany from providing arms to Israel for use in the Gaza Strip.
Continue reading >>
Third Provisional Measures in South Africa v Israel
On March 28, 2024, the ICJ issued its third provisional measures order in South Africa v Israel. The Court ordered further, more pointed, measures towards Israel to ensure the provision of humanitarian aid throughout Gaza. In this blog post, I consider that the right to be heard in the course of this third order has not been fully guaranteed since the ICJ based its ruling on the international reports which were not provided, known, and considered by either of the parties. Moreover, I argue that the ICJ underscored its decision on humanitarian law rather than obligations to prevent genocide.
Continue reading >>The Silent Victim of Israel’s War on Gaza
In March 2024, Forensic Architecture reported that more than 2,000 agricultural sites, including farms and greenhouses, have been destroyed in Gaza since October 2023. Almost six months into Israel’s war on Gaza, evidence indicates the devastating impacts of the war on the natural environment in Gaza. In particular, it has been reported that farms have been devastated, and nearly half of the trees in Gaza were razed. While this raises numerous issues, the question of whether Israel’s large-scale airstrikes on Gaza would make a substantial contribution to serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) protecting the natural environment during armed conflicts, deserves more thought than it gets.
Continue reading >>Apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territory?
The apartheid claim made against Israel because of its policy in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) – most recently in the ongoing advisory proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – cannot be settled with the counter-claim of antisemitism, but calls for an objective, thorough and fact-based legal inquiry. Only such an approach with regard to this and other allegations against Israeli policy will strengthen Israel, understood as a liberal and democratic Rechtsstaat, which guarantees, in line with its 1948 Declaration of Independence, “complete equality” to “all its inhabitants”.
Continue reading >>Beyond the Blocs
On Monday, 25 March, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza and the immediate release of hostages, as well as emphasizing the need to increase the provision and distribution of humanitarian aid. The Resolution was adopted 14-0, with the United States the only member to abstain. As the Security Council website announces, this Resolution ended a “months-long deadlock”. The recent Resolution is not perceived by Israeli actors as binding. And yet, I argue that the fact that the US and Russia are now essentially voting together on the need to end this war could lead to significant further ramifications that may shape the region and beyond.
Continue reading >>
Judging Nicaragua’s Public Interest Litigation in The Hague
The judicialisation of Israel’s war in Gaza has taken a significant turn, with Nicaragua boldly entering the scene and executing two distinct actions. This post contributes to understanding Nicaragua’s two moves before the ICJ by analysing three dimensions. First, the country’s rich relationship with the Court. Second, the prioritisation of political impact and visibility over adjudicative success. Finally, the normative assessments concerning Nicaragua’s moral standing and intentions.
Continue reading >>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 >>Conspicuously Absent
Nicaragua alleges that Germany violates the Genocide Convention and international humanitarian law by assisting Israel and also by failing to prevent violations of these bodies of law. It requests the International Court of Justice to indicate provisional measures, which would oblige Germany inter alia to stop assisting Israel. While the Court may be barred from exercising its jurisdiction over Nicaragua’s claims relating to the Genocide Convention it may be able to hear the claims regarding Germany’s duties under IHL.
Continue reading >>
Taking War to Court
A surprise attack launched by Hamas on October 7 ignited yet another period of violence in Israel and Gaza. In response, Israel launched an unprecedented invasion of the Gaza Strip, which resulted in the deaths of over 25,000 Gazans, most of them civilians. While the war does not seem to come close to an end, Israel has meanwhile encountered a different kind of problem; following the October 7 attack, Israel captured hundreds of Hamas fighters. Immediately following the start of the war, voices in Israel urged the government to launch criminal prosecutions of these attackers, with some arguing that Israel should impose the death penalty on the perpetrators.
Continue reading >>
The Legal Limits of Supporting Israel
On January 26, 2024, the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’ or ‘the Court’) issued its provisional measures order on the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). This article provides an overview of the legal implications of the ICJ’s order for third-party states providing political, financial, or military support to Israel, including the US, Canada, the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands. I argue that the plausibility of genocide establishes the necessary evidentiary threshold to trigger state responsibility for third-party states on the international level as well as to initiate domestic legal proceedings.
Continue reading >>Dutch Court Halts F-35 Aircraft Deliveries for Israel
In a landmark decision, the Hague Court of Appeal ordered the Dutch government on 12 February 2024 to stop supplying Israel with F-35 fighter jet parts because there was a “clear risk” that serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) would be committed with the aircraft in Gaza. In their unanimous decision, the three judges relied on the European Union (EU) Common Position on Arms Exports and the Arms Trade Treaty as they apply to Dutch law, which outline criteria against which military exports must be assessed to determine the risk of abuse. The judgment made important findings on the nature of these risk assessments, which may have significant implications in future litigation.
Continue reading >>
Why Nicaragua’s Article 62 Intervention in South Africa v. Israel is Potentially Unhelpful
On 23 January 2024, Nicaragua applied for permission to intervene in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). Nicaragua's application will drag proceedings out one way or another. Potentially it means the Court must hear and decide upon a third version of events, clouding South Africa’s original case. If this case is really about addressing what the Court described as a ‘human tragedy’ in Gaza and not just about political point-scoring, Nicaragua, by trying to help, may just have made things worse.
Continue reading >>UNRWA as Sui Generis
Since UNRWA preemptively disclosed Israel’s claim to have evidence that 12 UNRWA employees participated in the 7 October 2023 attacks, at least 16 donor states and the European Union, which collectively supply the vast majority of the Agency’s budget, have suspended their contributions. This poses an existential threat to UNRWA, the largest provider of humanitarian assistance in Gaza. This post explains how the current episode displays the unsatisfactory sui generis status of UNRWA’s Palestinian staff, and forms part of an ongoing and largely successful attempt to position UNRWA as a compromised, sui generis UN organisation which constitutes an outlier in the law and practice of the United Nations.
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 >>
Intervention auf Irrwegen
Am 29.12.2023 reichte Südafrika Klage vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof (IGH) gegen Israel wegen Verstößen gegen die Völkermordkonvention im Gazastreifen ein. Zusätzlich zum Hauptsacheantrag begehrte Südafrika im einstweiligen Rechtsschutz den Erlass von vorsorglichen Maßnahmen („Provisional Measures“), auf die sich auch die zweitägige Anhörung der Parteien bezog. Am zweiten Tag der Anhörungen verkündete Deutschland, zugunsten Israels zu intervenieren, mit der Begründung, der Vorwurf des Völkermords entbehre jeder Grundlage. Neben einer Zusammenfassung der Parteivorträge und der Eilrechtsschutzentscheidung des IGH vom 26.1.2024 beleuchtet der Beitrag die deutsche Rolle im Hauptsacheverfahren. Vor dem Hintergrund der aktuellen Entscheidung wie auch der Pluralität deutscher historischer Verantwortung droht die geplante Intervention der Glaubwürdigkeit Deutschlands im multilateralen System weiter zu schaden und die Universalität des Völkerrechts auszuhöhlen.
Continue reading >>Provisional Measures as Tools of American Empire
One could feel the weight of history on her shoulders, as Judge Joan Donoghue, President of the International Court of Justice, read the provisional measures order in South Africa v Israel. Her hand reached several times for the glass of water. Carefully, and with an occasional sip of water, she walked her viewers on the ICJ’s streaming service from one provisional measure to the next. By first zeroing in on the role of the American judge, this post describes how the provisional measures decided upon, ultimately correspond to a larger project of global American governance. As I will argue the US Executive Branch is likely to take a lead role in interpreting the provisional measures, further cementing their place as tools of empire.
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 >>Counter-Genocidal Governance
The International Court of Justice’s decision regarding South Africa’s request for provisional measures in its genocide case against Israel is expected tomorrow. Whatever the Court decides, it is worthwhile noting that the impact of the process is already evident. And any provisional measures that may be given, will shape a years-long and likely tense dialog between Israel and the Court, as well as third countries. Everything that will happen for the duration of the proceedings, over the next two or three years at least, will continue to build evidence until, finally, the owl of Minerva will spread its wings. My purpose in this post is to provide some provisional reflections on how that may work. In doing so, I will expand a bit on a notion I’ve tried to develop in a previous post, that of counter-genocidal governance.
Continue reading >>
Free Speech in the Shadow of the Israel-Gaza War
Since Hamas’ attack on October 7, and the war between Israel and Gaza that ensued, constraints on speech have become more widespread in Israel, both on the formal and informal level. Restrictions on anti-war demonstrations, police violence toward protestors, investigations and indictments for “incitement to terrorism” or “identifying with a terrorist organization” and other speech-restricting measures, have become the norm. At the much less discussed, informal level, Israeli media has largely embraced a non-critical position, failing to provide audiences with information as to the situation in Gaza, and providing almost all the analysis from an internal Israeli perspective. While this cannot be construed as a formal restriction on speech, it nevertheless speaks to the informal mechanisms that render criticism unpalatable during times of war.
Continue reading >>
Why Germany Should Join Sides with Israel before the ICJ in its Defense against South Africa’s Accusation of Genocide
Yesterday and today, the ICJ heard an application for provisional measures brought by South Africa, in which Israel is accused of the particularly serious crime of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza due to its reactions to the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023. This participation in the proceedings, as well as other reasons to be explained below, speak in favor of also declaring an intervention in the proceedings between South Africa and Israel – in this case, however, with the aim of supporting Israel as defendant and countering the South African argumentation.
Continue reading >>Warum Deutschland vor dem IGH dem von Südafrika gegen Israel erhobenen Vorwurf des Völkermords entgegentreten sollte
Heute und morgen verhandelt der IGH im Verfahren des einstweiligen Rechtsschutzes über eine Klage Südafrikas, in der gegen Israel aufgrund seiner Reaktionen auf die Anschläge der Hamas vom 7. Oktober 2023 der besonders schwere Vorwurf des Völkermords an Palästinenserinnen und Palästinensern erhoben wird. Die prozessuale Beteiligung der Bundesregierung an zwei weiteren Verfahren wegen Völkermords sowie weitere, nachfolgend zu erläuternde Gründe sprechen dafür, für das Hauptsacheverfahren zwischen Südafrika und Israel ebenfalls eine Nebenintervention zu erklären – hier allerdings mit dem Ziel, Israel beizustehen und der südafrikanischen Argumentation entgegenzutreten.
Continue reading >>Did the Israeli Supreme Court Kill the Constitutional Coup?
On January 1, 2024, the Israeli Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment prohibiting judicial review of actions of the government, the prime minister, or any minister based on the “reasonableness” doctrine. The judgment illustrates how societal and judicial vigilance in recognizing “early warning” signals of potential “constitutional capture” may play a significant role in battling such processes. However, notwithstanding this judgment and the halting of the legislative process, the threat of democratic backsliding in Israel persists. The ongoing war has, in fact, paved the way for further anti-democratic measures, some of which were upheld by the very same Court that struck down the anti-reasonableness amendment.
Continue reading >>
The Body of the Judge and the Suffering of the Collective
The widespread prediction among experts right now is that Israel’s chances of prevailing at the ICJ in its response to South Africa’s genocide application are slim. Let’s assume, for a moment, that the prediction is accurate. As has been reported, Israeli authorities, too, have acknowledged that there’s a real risk of an ICJ decision against Israel. What does this mean for Israel’s legal strategy? When a party is preparing to lose in a proceeding, one relevant question is what the minority opinion will look like. Aharon Barak’s appointment as an ad-hoc judge for the ICJ proceedings may reveal some of the outlines Israel is preparing for this minority opinion: even if we lose, we may still try to convince the world that the issue at hand is none other than the memory of the Holocaust. But this is a morally and politically risky choice to make.
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 >>‘Steadfast and Unreserved’
On 24 November 2023, the Barcelona City Council passed a resolution, suspending diplomatic ties with Israel, until a permanent ceasefire is established. While this may not reflect the stance of the Spanish government, it has nevertheless condemned ‘the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians’. As more EU States (such as Belgium, France, and Ireland) have raised their concerns regarding Israel’s continuous military operations in Gaza, Germany has remained steadfast in its ‘unwavering’ and ‘unreserved’ support for Israel. To the extent that Israel has failed to comply with international humanitarian law (IHL), Germany’s position might amount to a breach of its obligation under common Article 1 (CA1) of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (GC) to ‘ensure respect’ for IHL. While this obligation is incumbent on all States parties to the GC, this post focuses on Germany due to its particularly affirmative position with respect to Israel’s conduct.
Continue reading >>How the War in Gaza May Upend Israel’s Constitutional Limbo
The war in Gaza serves, this blog post argues, as the final nail in the coffin of Netanyahu's judicial overhaul. The Israeli political climate, relentless opposition and the political fallout after Hamas' surprise attack on Israel and the current war thwarted the judicial overhaul. However, populism is far from overcome. Therefore, the current failed judicial overhaul remains a warning sign for the democracy-seeking public in Israel and should raise demand for constitutional entrenchment of the democratic values of the Israeli state. As the judicial overhaul of 2023 has shown us – democracy is not safe if it hangs by the thread of a simple majority in parliament.
Continue reading >>
Hamas’ Atrocities, Israel’s Response, and the Primacy of International Law to Protect Civilians
In light of the atrocities committed by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad fighters in Israel on October 7, 2023 and the days thereafter, and against the backdrop of Germany’s historical responsibility, the German government and German politicians have unanimously expressed solidarity with Israel and emphasized its right to self-defense. Following the October 17, 2023 call by Kai Ambos for a differentiated debate, we explain which international humanitarian law precautions are relevant and what German policy can contribute to contain the escalation of violence as well as the suffering of the civilian population in the immediate conflict and in the future.
Continue reading >>Trapped in Gaza
Thousands of Palestinians are amassed at the Rafah border crossing into Egypt – the only land border point from Gaza that is not controlled by Israel. Periodically opened by Egypt to allow at least some aid convoys to enter Gaza, it has been firmly closed to Palestinians seeking to leave Gaza since October 10. Both international refugee and human rights law that bind Egypt make clear that its closure of the Rafah border crossing to all Palestinians – including to those at grave and imminent risk – is an illegal act of refoulement. In this case, it has proved to be an illegal act with truly deadly consequences and must be condemned as such.
Continue reading >>Who Speaks on Behalf of the European Union?
“It’s a cacophony. It’s ridiculous”. This is how an EU diplomat described the flow of EU statements following the outbreak of the war between Israel and Hamas. The divergent reactions reveal the existence of institutional tensions about the Union’s external representation, which undermine the coherence and credibility of the EU’s external action. The war between Israel and Hamas concerns issues of foreign and security policy. Whether one likes it or not, this is an area where the Commission has a more limited role – also with respect to external representation. A certain restraint or, at the very least, closer coordination with the Member States and the European External Action Service could have been expected.
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 >>Post-populist Populism
Good news for democracy from Poland? It appears that in the recent general elections, the right-wing populist Law and Justice party (PiS), won most seats but not enough to allow it to form a coalition. Donald Tusk's Civic Coalition has a better chance of forming a coalition, which might put an end to PiS' eight years of rule. This, prima facie, seems like a victory of democracy over populism. While this is certainly true, in this post we wish to flag certain warning signs that this possible democratic rotation is not the end of the struggle for democracy but merely the beginning of this process. This is because even when populists are voted out of office, their legacy - at least partially - persists.
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 >>What is Permissible in the War against Hamas?
What is permissible for the Israeli government to do in response to the murderous attack by Hamas? The answer to this is difficult, not only because blood is boiling and hearts are broken, but also because there is a complex moral dilemma here. In this blog, we hope to offer some guidelines to clarify the issue. We do not claim to provide definitive answers. The required analysis is complex, and it is incumbent upon the Israeli government and the IDF to ensure that the various steps taken are morally justified.
Continue reading >>Open letter from Israeli international law experts
The taking of hostages is a blatant violation of international law. We call for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. Pending their release, they are all entitled to be treated with humanity and respect. This includes the receipt of proper medical care and supply of essential medication for those who need it, and the provision of information regarding the hostages and means of communication with them. We call upon the international community, including all states and relevant international organizations to pressure those holding the hostages to release them all immediately.
Continue reading >>Game of Chicken
Yesterday, on September 12th, the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting en banc, heard eight petitions challenging a hotly contested constitutional amendment. The Court has rarely sat en banc in the past, and this is the first time that it sits in a composition of fifteen justices, attesting to the importance that the Court attributes to this decision. The amendment modifies Basic Law: the Judiciary, which protects judicial independence, lays out the process of judicial selection for all the state courts and grants the Supreme Court the authority to supervise state action when the Court convenes in its capacity as a High Court of Justice. In this blog, I will explain each side’s arguments and the strategic considerations behind the Attorney General’s unprecedented move to push the Court to explicitly invalidate a constitutional amendment. I will show how both sides ultimately found themselves dragged into a game of chicken from which they could not back down.
Continue reading >>
A Government of Laws, not of Men
The Israeli Supreme Court will hear this week (on September 12, 2023) petitions to invalidate an amendment to one of Israel’s Basic-Laws. The amendment, enacted in late July, denies the court the power to review the “reasonableness” of any governmental decision. This amendment is the first part of larger judicial overhaul plan, initiated by the Israeli government. Based on the court’s existing jurisprudence, I expect that the Supreme Court will declare the amendment unconstitutional, as it violates the core principle of the rule of law. In this post I offer a brief overview of the relevant background, before addressing the merits of the current case.
Continue reading >>
The False Hope of Israel’s Protestors
The Israel Supreme has become a major mobilizing source for the weekly mass protests against the reform that have been taking place in the last six months in many Israeli towns. Tens of thousands of liberals and conservatives rally around this institution, if not around anything else, confident that the Court is capable of preventing the government from irreversibly breaching the democratic walls. Unfortunately, this confidence is both unfounded and likely to sabotage the anti-reform movement. Given its past rulings and when keeping in mind the conservative nature of the institution of the Israeli judiciary, it is safe to say that the Israel Supreme Court will not be able to salvage the country from a democratic backsliding driven by a determined executive.
Continue reading >>
The Folly of the Israeli Government in Restricting Reasonableness
On Monday, July 24, the Israeli legislature passed a constitutional amendment that would constrain the courts’ ability to use the reasonableness doctrine. The reasonableness doctrine is a common law doctrine developed by the Israeli courts to review executive decisions. Without the reasonableness doctrine, Israel is more conflicted than ever, and vulnerable to the spread of the scourge of corruption. The government shot itself in the foot both domestically and internationally.
Continue reading >>An Unreasonable Amendment
Amidst massive protests taking place in Jerusalem and throughout the country, on July 24th the Knesset (Israeli parliament) passed Amendment Number 3 to Basic Law: The Judiciary, curtailing the power of Israel’s Supreme Court. The amendment determines that no court, including the Supreme Court seating as the High Court of Justice, may engage with and/or pass judgment on the reasonableness of any “decision” of the government, the prime minister, or any minister; nor may a court give an order on the said matter. The coalition government’s choice to go ahead with the legislation notwithstanding the internal and external pressures may now only deepen the multi-layered crisis the country has been in since January.
Continue reading >>
Did Israel Lose its Sanity?
Israel is in the midst of an acute struggle over its constitutional identity. We are witnessing a government adamant about revolutionizing Israel’s constitution (“Basic Laws”), which may typically be amended by a simple majority of the legislature and is thus prey to the whims of an extreme government. The most recent move on the government’s agenda, passing a constitutional amendment that would severely restrict the reasonableness doctrine, would bring Israel closer to the brink of constitutional chaos. In this blog, I explain the theoretical arguments in favor and against the proposal and lay out the implications, should this proposal go through, given the government’s true, concerning motivations that are already evident on the grounds.
Continue reading >>
Saifan and the Weaponization of Trade Secrets
The Knesset’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee has been convening to discuss the regulation of spyware in response to the on-going fall-out over the Israeli police’s use of the spyware Pegasus (“Saifan” in its local iteration) to surveil Israeli citizens, including political activists. Public debate has chiefly focused on the question of legal authority surrounding police surveillance but has generally failed to recognize the underlying cooptative dynamics of governmental technology procurement. In this post, we detail the contested legal grounds on which the Israeli police and Ministry of Justice rely for spyware authorization as well as an analysis of the government procurement of surveillance technology, with particular emphasis on the weaponization of trade secrets in the service of strategic concealment of governmental operations. We argue that the combination of outdated laws with nontransparent operations make public accountability and oversight intensely difficult.
Continue reading >>
In Jerusalem my Heart wanted to Scream out: “I am Polin, too” …
I went to Israel at a moment’s notice to share the lessons and cautionary tales of anti-constitutional capture in Poland and to explain the mechanics behind systemic and legalistic dismantling of the liberal foundations of the legal order. However, during my stay in Israel, I realized that as much the Israelis wanted to learn from me, they might as well teach Poles crucial lessons, not less these of civic engagement and mobilization.
Continue reading >>
The Battle Over the Populist Constitutional Coup in Israel
On the night of March 26, 2023, the battle over the constitutional overhaul planned by Israel’s Netanyahu government reached an apex moment. Much uncertainty lies ahead. What is clear is that a combination of massive protests, pressure by significant groups in Israeli society such as the tech industry and elite military reservists, and American pressure forced Netanyahu to suspend the legislative process. Whether this development will lead to the burial or the reemergence of the constitutional coup is yet to be seen. The road ahead is complicated, as rejection of the coalition’s plan, while seemingly a victory for the democracy movement, may also serve to feed the populist argument about elites.
Continue reading >>
Separating Substance from Procedure: How to Address the Israeli Constitutional Crisis
Many proposals to resolve the current Israeli constitutional crisis have been recently advanced. Yet, most of them are arguably unlikely to bring about a compromise. This is so not because their content cannot be accepted by the parties involved, but because they do not address the substantive concerns of the parties. Israel's constitutional crisis results from the fact that the parties to the conflict shape their proposals concerning the decision-making process in a way that is conducive to their short-term substantive interests. Any proposed solution must therefore separate substantive questions from procedural and institutional ones.
Continue reading >>
The Proposed Constitutional Putsch in Israel
February and March 2023 have seen hundreds of thousands of demonstrators protesting against new proposed constitutional amendments designed to transform the constitutional foundations of the State of Israel. This is an exceptional phenomenon. Israel has seen mass demonstrations in the past, but it has never seen mass demonstrations on what may seem like issues which should concern, at best, lawyers or law professors. But looked at more attentively, this reaction is not surprising: beneath the legalistic debate on the constitutional amendments lurk deeper issues: should Israel be more western or more Jewish? What is the status of Jewishness in the Jewish State? What should the status of Palestinians in a Jewish State be? Is Israel primarily a western state, or is it a nationalist theocracy? A lot is, therefore, at stake for every Israeli citizen!
Continue reading >>
Israels Staatsumbau
Israels neue rechtsreligiöse Regierung unter Benjamin arbeitet an einer Justizreform, die hunderttausende Demonstranten auf die Straße treibt und in der Kritik steht, den israelischen Rechtsstaat zu zerstören. Bei genauerer Betrachtung wird klar, dass es bei den Protesten nicht nur um die Reform selbst, sondern auch um grundlegende Fragen nach dem Charakter des jüdischen Staates und seiner Identität geht. Das israelische Rechtssystem steht schon immer stellvertretend für den Staat selbst. Die gespaltene israelische Gesellschaft streitet um das Verständnis von Demokratie, das Verhältnis von Religion und Staat und um die zukünftige Machtposition einzelner Gesellschaftsgruppen.
Continue reading >>In der Existenz bedroht
"In Ungarn geht es um das Überleben der Demokratie. In Israel geht es um das Überleben Israels."
Continue reading >>
An Existential Threat
"In Hungary, it is about the survival of democracy. In Israel, it is about the survival of Israel."
Continue reading >>
Israel’s New Citizenship Deprivation-Deportation Pipeline
Buried in the news on the Israeli Knesset’s judicial reform plans are two bills that substantially increase the government’s power to deprive citizenship and subsequently deport Palestinian citizens convicted of terrorism offences and their family members. One already passed into law last Wednesday, while the one targeting their family members is still making its way through committees. In this blog post we survey and evaluate the rationales used to justify these newly assumed powers and set out why their current design is so insidious.
Continue reading >>
The Economic Fallout from Curtailing Judicial Independence
The attempt to emasculate Israel's Supreme Court has drawn widespread criticism and protest, both at home and abroad. An intriguing aspect of the situation has been the opposition expressed by business interests and economic experts, who are often and perhaps wrongly believed to attach an overwhelmingly high value to efficiency, commonly achieved in an institutional environment characterized by the absence of competing centers of political power. Perhaps the most visible manifestation of the concerns and fears emanating from this source has been the open letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signed by fifty-six prominent international economists, including eleven Nobel laureates, stating that judicial reform along the lines contemplated would set Israel on a course akin to that of Hungary and Poland.
Continue reading >>
Statement by Canadian Law Professors and Jurists on the Proposed Legal Reforms in Israel
The undersigned are Canadian law professors and jurists. We write […]
Continue reading >>
Israel: Cry, the Beloved Country
Israel, like many other democracies today, is a deeply polarized society. The operating principle of public discourse is typically: “Art thou for us or for our adversaries” (Joshua 5:13). It is thus telling that, in the recent eruption in response to Netanyahu’s new government plan to reform the judicial system, one sees groups whom one would have never expected on the anti-government side of the current protests.
Continue reading >>The Populist Constitutional Revolution in Israel
Israel’s Minister of Justice has published memorandums outlining the (first) major steps in the constitutional overhaul planned by Netanyahu’s new government – an overhaul at the epicenter of the rise of constitutional populism in Israel. The paradoxes of Israeli constitutional law make it vulnerable to such a populist attack, which occurs within a specific ethno-national context involving ongoing military occupation.
Continue reading >>
A Possible Regime Change in Israel
Israel is rapidly undergoing a regime change/constitutional revolution - Hungary style - as reflected by various draft bills placed on the Knesset’s agenda during the past days, accompanied by a grand plan of reform presented by the Minister of Justice on January 4th. The new Israeli government only took office a few weeks ago, but these plans, evidently, were prepared carefully over several years. If successful, Israel may fully lose its democracy.
Continue reading >>Annexation is in the Details
The influx of news coming out of Israel these days renders it difficult to grasp the full scale and meaning of the constitutional and legal changes Israel is facing. In this blogpost, I wish to focus on one aspect of the upcoming changes, namely those that regard Israel’s control of the Occupied Territories. On December 28, 2022, Israel’s incoming Minister of Finance, Bezalel Smotrich, published an op-ed in the WSJ in which he argued, among other things, that the changes regarding the division of responsibilities concerning the Occupied Territories among Israeli bodies do not “entail changing the political or legal status of the area”. However, an examination of the changes included in the Coalition’s Basic Principles, published on December 12, 2022, and the coalitionary agreement between Netanyahu’s Likud Party and the Religious Zionist party, portrays a very different picture.
Continue reading >>
On the Nexus between Separation of Powers and Judicial Power
This exercise in comparative constitutional law shows how, paradoxically, positioning a country on either side of the spectrum of separation of powers structures may lead to similar curtailment of the judiciary’s power, though courts in the two opposing regimes may use very different, and even opposing, judicial doctrines to reach similar non-interventionalist results. Moreover, though scholars typically study these common law judicial doctrines independently of one another, they are all a manifestation of how strong or weak the separation of powers in a given country is. Ultimately, the judicial branch may supplement, but not supplant, the democratically elected political branches, irrespective of the separation of powers in the country in question
Continue reading >>
The High Stakes Israeli Debate over the Override
Following the 2022 elections to Israel’s legislature (Knesset), a hardcore right wing coalition is in the process of forming. Each of the potential partners in this coalition fantasizes about introducing an override clause into the Israeli constitutional system for different political motivations. However, the result would be the same. It would allow the Knesset to disproportionally infringe upon constitutional rights.
Continue reading >>
The Tangible and Imminent Threat to Israel’s Judicial Independence
A fierce debate is raging these days about the democratic implications of the Israeli 2022 elections to the twenty-fifth Knesset (legislature). Yet, those who read the platform of the Religious Zionist Party—as expressed in the program "Law and Justice-Reform of the Judicial System," signed by the members of the Knesset, Bezalel Smotrich and Simcha Rothman—cannot ignore the real and imminent danger to Israel’s judicial independence. The top item on their agenda, published during their election campaign, is changing the judicial appointment process.
Continue reading >>
Hanging by a Thread
On June 20, 2022, Israel’s PM Naftali Bennet announced that he has decided, together with Yair Lapid, Israel’s foreign minister and Alternate Prime Minister, to disperse the Knesset. Bennet explained that the dissolvement was necessary to avoid “constitutional chaos”. But what was this pending “chaos”? What Bennet was referring to in such dramatic terms is the prospect of the expiration of the Emergency Regulations (Judea and Samaria—Adjudication of Offenses and Legal Assistance), which were set to expire as a result of the Knesset failing to pass a law extending them. What are these regulations? And how can the expiration of regulations, let alone emergency regulations, amount to a constitutional crisis?
Continue reading >>Versammlungsfreiheit gilt auch für Palästinenser
Wie jedes Jahr werden weltweit Demonstrationen stattfinden, die an die Nakba erinnern, und dieses Jahr wird auch der Tod Abu Akles Thema sein. Nicht allerdings in Berlin, zumindest nicht legal. Denn die Polizei hat gleich fünf angemeldete Demonstrationen untersagt; Verwaltungsgericht und Oberverwaltungsgericht haben die Verbote aufrechterhalten. Ein Verdacht drängt sich auf: Sollte der Verbotsgrund darin liegen, dass „diese Klientel“ dem Staat besonders unangenehm ist?
Continue reading >>“Im Zweifelsfall inhaftieren!”
Israel wurde in letzter Zeit von einer Reihe von Terroranschlägen heimgesucht, darunter drei Anschläge in einer einzigen Woche Ende März 2022, und weitere seither. In dem Versuch, die Gewalt einzudämmen, beschloss die israelische Regierung unter anderem nicht nur mutmaßliche Terroristen aus den besetzten Gebieten (wie sie es regelmäßig tut), sondern auch mögliche Verdächtige unter israelischen Bürgern ohne Gerichtsverfahren in Verwaltungshaft zu nehmen. Der Einsatz von Verwaltungshaft ohne Gerichtsverfahren ist ein gutes Beispiel für den permanenten Ausnahmezustand, da er als reguläres Mittel der Regierung eingesetzt wird: Im Zweifelsfall verhaftet die israelische Regierung.
Continue reading >>
“When in doubt, detain!”
Israel recently saw a bout of terror attacks, including three assaults in a single week in late March 2022, and more since. The Israeli Government, in an attempt to curb the violence, decided among other steps to administratively detain without trial not only suspected possible terrorists from the Occupied Territories (as it regularly does) but also possible suspects among Israeli citizens. The use of administrative detentions without trial is a good example of the permanent mindset of emergency, as they are utilized as a regular means of government: when in doubt, the Israeli government detains.
Continue reading >>
Wrong to the Core
On May 4, 2022, close to midnight, the Supreme Court of Israel released its judgment in HCJ 413/13 Abu Aram v. Minister of Defense, holding that the Israeli army is permitted to evict eight Palestinian communities in Masafer Yatta, a rural area in the South Hebron Hills in the West Bank, for the stated purpose of establishing a “firing zone” for the IDF. The judgment sealed over two decades of litigation, in which the Court pushed the parties to settle and “compromise.” Unfortunately, the decision in this case is wrong to the core.
Continue reading >>
When Your Own Spyware Hits Home
A newspaper report from January 18, 2022, revealed that the Israeli police has been using a spy software to spy on its own citizens. This affair illustrates how existing Israeli privacy law is inadequate for dealing with the types of privacy violations enabled by new technologies. But the ease with which these technologies are used also speaks volumes about the militarization of Israeli society.
Continue reading >>
Does Where You (Legally) Stand Depend On Where You Sit?
On July 8, 2021, the Israeli Supreme Court rejected the petitions challenging Basic Law: Israel as the Nation of the Jewish People, enacted almost three years earlier. The so-called Hasson decision not only raises important questions about the relationship between legal and political struggles, it also calls into question the constitutional foundations of equality and democracy.
Continue reading >>
After he’s gone
Bibi's fall and how to find back from authoritarian populism to democratic politics
Continue reading >>
Wenn er weg ist
Bibis Sturz und wie man aus dem autoritären Populismus in die demokratische Politik zurückfindet
Continue reading >>Saving the Constitution from Politics
On May 23, 2021, the Israeli High Court of Justice (HCJ) delivered an important decision setting and defining the limits for the use of Basic Laws – laws of a constitutional ranking – for the purpose of solving temporary political and coalition problems. The Basic Laws are supposed to be “the crown jewels” of our constitutional system, yet in Israeli politics they have become an instrumental tool for narrow and everyday political interest, often amended in a temporary manner. The decision, given by a 6-3 majority of an extended bench, now defines some constitutional boundaries for the proper use of Basic Laws.
Continue reading >>
A Year in Review: COVID-19 in Israel
Israel’s response to the pandemic took place in an unstable and highly polarized political climate. This affected the decisions taken in several ways. First, throughout the crisis, it was difficult to achieve agreement within the government on required actions. In addition, decisions often reflected political rather than professional considerations, a problem that was exacerbated by the instability of the coalition. The prospect of additional elections also effected the political will to enforce restrictions, in particular in the Ultra-Orthodox sector, as Ultra-Orthodox parties are perceived by Netanyahu as necessary partners in any government coalition.
Continue reading >>
Tracking Citizens
Israeli authorities will still be able to use military phone tracking surveillance technology in the combat against the Coronavirus – but not in a way as unbridled as the government had wished. This is the outcome of a recent decision by the Israeli Supreme Court in the case of ACRI v. the Knesset. The Court refrained from declaring the Law authorizing the General Secret Service to track contact persons of infected COVID-19 patients invalid, but limited the cases in which military phone tracking surveillance technology could be used, and required the government to establish clear criteria for such use.
Continue reading >>
„Solid jurisdictional basis“?
Am 5.2.2021 erging die langerwartete Entscheidung von Vorverfahrenskammer I zur Frage der Zuständigkeit des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs für mögliche Kriegsverbrechen in den von Israel besetzen palästinensischen Gebieten seit 13.6.2014. Die Entscheidung erging auf Antrag der Anklagebehörde, die zwar von einem Anfangsverdacht iSv Art. 53 Abs. 1 IStGH-Statut ausgeht, vor der Fortführung der Ermittlungen die Zuständigkeitsfrage aber vorab geklärt haben wollte. Der Grund liegt darin, dass die Staatenqualität Palästinas höchst umstritten ist, irgendeine Form von Staatlichkeit aber Voraussetzung für die territoriale Zuständigkeit des Gerichtshofs ist.
Continue reading >>
The Paradox of Israel’s Coronavirus Law
On January 12, 2021, the Israeli Supreme Court sitting as High Court of Justice (HCJ) will hear arguments in a series of cases challenging the constitutionality of Israel’s Coronavirus Law. This Law was enacted on July 23, 2020, to replace the Israeli government’s reliance on general emergency powers. It was supposed to curb the government’s powers on restricting rights and ensure parliamentary supervision of enacted measures. In fact, however, it handed the government new executive lawmaking powers rather than limiting them.
Continue reading >>
An Emergency within an Emergency within an Emergency
On September 17, 2020, I published a blogpost on Verfassungsblog, warning that while COVID-19 has not, at the time, been used in Israel as a justification for banning protests, there was reason for concern. The concern materialized on September 30, 2020. The Knesset amended the Coronavirus Law to allow the government to declare a “special coronavirus emergency situation” which raises an array of questions.
Continue reading >>Lock-Down to Avoid Lock-Up?
Whether and to what extent public demonstrations can legitimately be limited in times of a pandemic is a challenge many countries are facing these days. In Israel, however, the COVID-19 crisis is intertwined with an ongoing political crisis. Citizens take to the street against a government which uses the pandemic as an argument to restrict those very protests. With a second lock-down imminent, is freedom of assembly in danger in Israel?
Continue reading >>Constitutional Adjudication of International Law Violations
On June 9, 2020, the Israeli Supreme Court delivered its long-awaited decision regarding the 2017 Settlement Law. The Court invalidated the Law by an 8 to 1 majority, determining that it violated the constitutional rights to property, dignity and equality. In addition to the importance of the concrete decision, the ruling raises important issues regarding the applicability of Israeli constitutional law to the Occupied Territories, the role of international law in the context of constitutional review in Israel, and the relevance of the answers to these issues in the case of a possible upcoming annexation of the West Bank.
Continue reading >>
Is it the Court’s Role to Save a Country from Itself?
On May 6, 2020, the Israeli Supreme Court rejected eight petitions against PM Netanyahu’s rule as PM and against the unity agreement between Netanyahu and his former contender, Benny Gantz (“the Unity Agreement”). The unanimous decision was delivered by an expanded panel of eleven judges, who emphasized that despite the severity of the allegations against Netanyahu, there was no basis, in Israeli law, for disqualifying him.
Continue reading >>
Corona Constitutional #12: Netanyahu widerstehen
Die Bilder aus Tel Aviv vom letzten Sonntag haben viele beeindruckt: Eine Massendemonstration mitten in der Coronakrise, Tausende von Menschen, die ihren Protest gegen die Regierung Netanyahu mit ihrer physischen Präsenz unterlegen und dabei – das ist das besondere, – social distancing wahren. In Israel ist vieles besonders in diesen Tagen, die Pandemie trifft auf eine politische und eine Verfassungskrise, dem Regierungschef droht die Anklage und um ihr zu entgehen, nimmt er immer größere Schäden an der Verfassung in Kauf. Wie sich Demokratie und Rechtsstaat schlagen in diesem Konflikt, darüber spricht Max Steinbeis mit TAMAR HOSTOVSKY BRANDES.
Continue reading >>
Constitutional Crisis in Israel: Coronavirus, Interbranch Conflict, and Dynamic Judicial Review
The Covid-19 pandemic hit Israel in fragile political and constitutional times. After three consecutive national elections and during unprecedented and continuous constitutional crisis, it has deepened an interbranch conflict that has led to the High Court of Justice (HCJ) taking part, in real time, in a dynamic judicial review. The HCJ not only facilitated the functioning of the parliament but also expedited its oversight on the government’s use of emergency powers.
Continue reading >>
Israel’s Perfect Storm: Fighting Coronavirus in the Midst of a Constitutional Crisis
A notable characteristic of the Israeli management of the crisis is the growing reliance on the military and on national security agencies, with respect to both types of measures. The sections below will examine the measures taken, the concerns these measures raise, and the steps taken to address such concerns.
Continue reading >>
When the Coronavirus Crisis Turns into a Crisis of Democracy
The ongoing political crisis in Israel raises the question of whether the government acts fully in good faith when deciding on measures to fight the spread of COVID-19. The current situation, in which the parliament is hindered from functioning and in which emergency regulations directly benefit the personal situation of the current Prime Minister, raises doubts about this.
Continue reading >>An Open Letter to the Speaker and the Legal Advisor of the Knesset
Following the March 2 election, Prime Minister Netanyahu has the support of 58 Knesset-Members. In contrast, 61 Knesset-Members have come out in support of Benny Gantz. In light of this majority, earlier this week Gantz was tasked by Israel’s President the mandate to try and form a government. Against this backdrop, on Wednesday, Parliament Speaker Yuli Edelstein unexpectedly suspended the recently elected Knesset.
Continue reading >>
Slowing or Stopping the Turn to Authoritarianism in Israel
The elections will not bring any change with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the religious conflict or the growing inequality. But they are important and even crucial for the future of Israel as they are most likely to slow and perhaps block the erosion of the protection of civil rights in Israel and the slow but continuous transition of Israel from a liberal democracy to an authoritarian one.
Continue reading >>
What Difference Does it Make to Fully Annex the Quasi-Annexed Occupied Territories?
Whether or not Netanyahu’s era of prime minister of Israel is coming to an end, his campaign announcement that Israel will unilaterally annex at least parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories should not be dismissed. First, because this possibility has long ceased to be a political taboo in Israel. Second, and more importantly, because in many ways, a sub-official process of partial annexation is already taking place in Israel, to a large extent, under the radar of the international community.
Continue reading >>
36 Jahre Sabra und Shatila und die Frage der Strafverfolgung
Das Massaker von Sabra und Shatila wurde zum Sinnbild für die Grausamkeiten des Libanesischen Bürgerkrieges. In dieser Woche jähren sich die Ereignisse zum 36. Mal. Grund genug der Frage nachzugehen, ob eine etwaige Strafverfolgung gegen die aktiv beteiligten Milizionäre durch deutsche Strafverfolgungsbehörden auch heutzutage noch möglich wäre.
Continue reading >>Shifting towards a democratic-authoritarian state: Israel’s new Nation-State Law
The 'Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People' was passed by the Knesset on July 19, 2018. The Basic Law purports to entrench the identity of the state as a Jewish state. As this Article is being written several petitions against the Basic Law are being prepared and will be submitted to the Supreme Court. The Court however may find it very difficult to declare the Basic Law void.
Continue reading >>
A new chapter in Israel’s “constitution”: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People
In the very last day of the Knesset’s summer session, on July 19th 2018, the Israeli Knesset passed a new Basic Law stating that Israel is the Nation State of the Jewish people. Supporters of this Basic Law claim that it simply states the obvious: Israel was established as a refuge and a homeland for the Jewish people. Still, the Basic Law is very problematic. Not because of what is included within it, but mainly for what is missing from it: the idea of a democratic state and the principle of equality.
Continue reading >>The Israeli Override Clause and the Future of Israeli Democracy
The recent proposals to enact an override clause to the Israeli Basic Law; Human Dignity and Liberty has triggered a fierce public debate in Israeli legal and political circles. Under this proposal, the Knesset could reenact a statute that was declared void by the courts. As is characteristic of such debates, the proponents and opponents of the override clause claim to defend democracy, strengthen the protection of rights and defend restore the proper balance between different branches of government. The purpose of this post is to explain the background of this debate and evaluate the pros and cons of the override clause in the Israeli context.
Continue reading >>
Protecting Israeli Citizens against Discrimination in Germany?
Last week, the district court of Frankfurt/Main issued a verdict that Kuwait Airways was allowed to refuse an Israeli citizen on its flight. The decision gained widespread international news coverage: Amidst concerns about rising antisemitism in Europe, many parts of the public were alarmed by what the mayor of Frankfurt described as anti-Semitic discriminatory practices that violated German law and international standards. In the following we take a close look at the legal issues involved in this case and discuss whether or not it might have been possible to come to a different conclusion.
Continue reading >>Courts in a Populist World
“I did not come to in order to be loved […]
Continue reading >>
Palästinenser suchen “Präsidenten” per Castingshow
Eine der Errungenschaften dieses Jahrhunderts ist die Erfindung der Castingshow: […]
Continue reading >>Ein paar Gedanken zum New-School-Antisemitismus
Was Old-School-Antisemitismus ist, davon haben wir alle eine ziemlich genaue […]
Continue reading >>Israels Regierung will Supreme Court nach rechts drücken
Ran Hirschl berichtet auf ComparativeConstitutions.org über zwei Gesetze, die derzeit […]
Continue reading >>
