07 December 2024
„Das IGH-Gutachten könnte die globale Klimagovernance grundlegend ändern.“
Fünf Fragen an Tejas Rao, Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger and Markus Gehring Continue reading >>
0 
07 December 2024
“The Advisory Opinion Could Reshape Global Climate Governance.”
Five Questions to Tejas Rao, Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger and Markus Gehring Continue reading >>
0
03 December 2024
The Return of Not-Quite “Phantom Experts”?
On Monday, 2 December 2024, the much anticipated hearing began in the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change advisory proceedings before the International Court of Justice. Less than a week before the start of the hearing, the Court issued a brief and unusual press release about a meeting that it held with scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Court’s decision to meet privately with the scientists raises questions about the Court’s procedures and its approach to evidence. Above all, it is unclear why the Court decided to consult with the IPCC scientists in a closed meeting rather than eliciting testimony from these individuals as part of the formal, public hearing. Continue reading >>
0
12 November 2024
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 >>
0
08 November 2024
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 >>
0
17 October 2024
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 >>
0
17 October 2024
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 >>
0
15 October 2024
Unseating the Israeli Government from the UN General Assembly in case of non-compliance with the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024
This post analyses the possibility of unseating the Israeli Government from the UN General Assembly in case of non-compliance with the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024. The Advisory Opinion provides a particularly strong legal basis – grounded primarily in the right to self-determination – to unseat Israel’s government from the General Assembly until it complies with the Opinion – as the Assembly did with South Africa fifty years ago. Continue reading >>14 October 2024
Third State obligations in the ICJ Advisory Opinion
What are the possible implications of the Advisory Opinion for the United Kingdom and Cyprus with regard to the UK’s arms and surveillance support to Israel through its military bases in Cyprus? This post argues that the third State obligations identified by the Court, including the duty not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the illegal situation, also apply to the current war in Gaza. Continue reading >>
0
14 October 2024
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 >>
0