A Piece of Advice
In this blog post, we discuss two pieces of advice about the legal and political consequences for the Netherlands arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. These are the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion of July 2024 and the Advisory Letter from the Dutch Advisory Council on International Affairs of October 2024. Both pieces of advice provide concrete recommendations, many of which, in our view, require fundamental changes in the current Dutch policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Dutch Government is constitutionally obliged to provide a meaningful response to both these pieces of advice. So far, however, it has failed to do so.
Continue reading >>
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 >>
Wer darf jüdische Identität in Deutschland definieren?
Der Deutsche Bundestag hat heute eine Resolution verabschiedet, die öffentliche Gelder für Kultur und Wissenschaft an die Antisemitismusdefinition der International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) knüpft. Weithin erforscht wurde das Potenzial der IHRA-Definition, die Meinungsfreiheit der Palästinenser:innen zu beschränken. Doch daneben verdienen auch andere Probleme Aufmerksamkeit: vor allem das Potenzial der Definition, jüdische politische Identität auf eine einzige Version zu reduzieren, die mit dem Staat Israel übereinstimmt. So ermächtigt die Resolution den Staat Israel, über eine Frage zu entscheiden, die in jüdischen Kreisen tatsächlich heiß diskutiert wird.
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 >>
“Never Again”
“Never again” is, first and foremost, a story. It’s a story about our collective fears, anxieties, and aspirations, those moments and events that we have promised ourselves that will never be repeated. The Jewish story is interwoven with the Holocaust—the killing of six million Jews in Europe and the urgency of the re-establishment of a Jewish state to solve the problem of Jewish homelessness. Yet the constitutional and international meaning of “never again” depends on one’s position and point of view, and it changes over time. The chain reaction that began with the horrors of WWII continues to drive constitutional and international agendas. It is clear that “history talks,” but in which direction?
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 >>
From Gaza to Manhattan and Back
The real protectors of the universities.
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 >>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 >>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 >>
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 >>
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 >>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 >>