El Mahmoud, Khaled Author aut Text xx# 2024 Verfassungsblog 2024-01-25 eng

electronic resource

remote

Computermedien

Online-Ressource

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. CC BY-SA 4.0 El Mahmoud, Khaled Deutschland Genocide Germany ICJ Intervention Intervention Israel Israel South Africa Statute of the International Court of Justice | Vereinte Nationen Südafrika Völkermord Deutschland Intervention Israel Südafrika Statute of the International Court of Justice | Vereinte Nationen Völkermord 342 https://verfassungsblog.de/measuring-with-double-legal-standards-germanys-intervention-in-support-of-israel-before-the-icj/ 2366-7044 Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH 10.59704/1c5ec794a420161f 240125 10.59704/1c5ec794a420161f Converted from MARCXML to MODS version 3.7 using MARC21slim2MODS3-7.xsl (Revision 1.140 20200717)