23 December 2024
The ICC Under a New Threat
Since the ICC announced arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, the world has started to observe open equivocation from France and other European states about executing those arrest warrants. This inevitably raises the question whether it had been too easy in the past for nations of the West to profess “unflinching support” for the ICC when all the accused persons were Africans; even though the conducts of some of them (consider, for instance, the defendants from Kenya and Côte d’Ivoire) came nowhere close to the extravagant cruelty on full display in Gaza, despite rulings of the International Court of Justice and the relentless appeals of the UN Secretary General. Continue reading >>
0 
19 December 2024
Deutschland, Israel und der IGH
Das Verfahren zwischen Südafrika und Israel vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof zählt vielleicht zu den bedeutendsten in der Geschichte des Gerichts. Bereits zehn Staaten sind dem Verfahren beigetreten oder haben ihren Beitritt beantragt. Deutschland kündigte seine Absicht zur Intervention bereits kurz nach der Klageeinreichung Südafrikas an, noch bevor es selbst in einen Rechtsstreit mit Nicaragua über die Unterstützung Israels verwickelt wurde. Eine politisch motivierte Intervention unter Art. 63 des IGH-Status würde sich jedoch dem Vorwurf der Doppelmoral aussetzen. Erweiterten Handlungsspielraum eröffnet dagegen eine Intervention unter Art. 62 des IGH-Status. Continue reading >>04 December 2024
Under Guise of War
The Knesset’s legislative work since October 2023 has included several legislative initiatives that may be creating a framework for furthering systemic discrimination against Arab Israelis. These new laws could pose a dangerous new precedent in Israel, stripping the right to equality and human dignity of their meaning and threatening the already fragile state of democracy as we know it. Continue reading >>
0
21 October 2024
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 >>
0
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
13 October 2024
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 >>
0
11 October 2024
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 >>
0
09 October 2024
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 >>
0
23 September 2024
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 >>
0
19 September 2024
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 >>
0