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
08 July 2024
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 >>25 May 2024
Consensus, at what Cost?
After four applications for provisional measures, three sets of formal orders and two rounds of oral hearings, on Friday night, the International Court of Justice in South Africa v. Israel delivered a long-awaited Order. It is, to be frank, most unsatisfactory. While the Court is known for its “Solomonic” decisions, which try to give each party a little of what they asked for at times to no one’s satisfaction, this is not a maritime boundary delimitation where equidistance can be imposed in pursuit of impartiality. Continue reading >>16 May 2024