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 >>
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 >>
Non-Recognition and Non-Assistance
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) not only made it crystal clear that Israeli occupation is illegal in every respect – by itself a challenge for Western foreign offices as they face reproaches for double standards. The Court also added a number of paragraphs detailing the legal consequences of the Advisory Opinion for UN Member States.
Continue reading >>
Power to the People
Das am 19. Juli 2024 veröffentlichte Gutachten des IGH zu der israelischen Besatzung Palästinas ist zurecht als Zeitenwende und bahnbrechend beschrieben sowie von einer Vielzahl von UN-Experten begrüßt worden. Das Gericht gibt der Staatengemeinschaft grünes Licht, Maßnahmen wie etwa Sanktionen und den Abbruch von Handelsbeziehungen zu ergreifen. Für die EU, dem wichtigsten Wirtschaftspartner Israels, wurden bereits konkrete Vorschläge gemacht. Dabei könnten Sanktionen gegenüber Unternehmen oder gewalttätigen Siedler:innen aufgrund der etwas geringeren politischen Brisanz erfolgversprechender sein als an die israelische Regierung gerichtete Sanktionen.
Continue reading >>Nicaragua Comes Up Empty
On 30 April 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rejected a request by Nicaragua for the indication of provisional measures in connection with claims relating to Germany’s support for Israel in the ongoing Gaza conflict. In a terse, sparsely-reasoned decision, the Court decided 15-1 that the circumstances were ‘not such as to require the exercise of its power under Article 41 of the Statute to indicate provisional measures’. While this outcome was not necessarily surprising to those who had followed the proceedings, the Court’s approach—in which it declined to address the usual requirements for the indication of provisional measures—was unusual.
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 >>Conspicuously Absent
Nicaragua alleges that Germany violates the Genocide Convention and international humanitarian law by assisting Israel and also by failing to prevent violations of these bodies of law. It requests the International Court of Justice to indicate provisional measures, which would oblige Germany inter alia to stop assisting Israel. While the Court may be barred from exercising its jurisdiction over Nicaragua’s claims relating to the Genocide Convention it may be able to hear the claims regarding Germany’s duties under IHL.
Continue reading >>
The Legal Limits of Supporting Israel
On January 26, 2024, the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’ or ‘the Court’) issued its provisional measures order on the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). This article provides an overview of the legal implications of the ICJ’s order for third-party states providing political, financial, or military support to Israel, including the US, Canada, the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands. I argue that the plausibility of genocide establishes the necessary evidentiary threshold to trigger state responsibility for third-party states on the international level as well as to initiate domestic legal proceedings.
Continue reading >>Why Nicaragua’s Article 62 Intervention in South Africa v. Israel is Potentially Unhelpful
On 23 January 2024, Nicaragua applied for permission to intervene in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). Nicaragua's application will drag proceedings out one way or another. Potentially it means the Court must hear and decide upon a third version of events, clouding South Africa’s original case. If this case is really about addressing what the Court described as a ‘human tragedy’ in Gaza and not just about political point-scoring, Nicaragua, by trying to help, may just have made things worse.
Continue reading >>Provisional Measures as Tools of American Empire
One could feel the weight of history on her shoulders, as Judge Joan Donoghue, President of the International Court of Justice, read the provisional measures order in South Africa v Israel. Her hand reached several times for the glass of water. Carefully, and with an occasional sip of water, she walked her viewers on the ICJ’s streaming service from one provisional measure to the next. By first zeroing in on the role of the American judge, this post describes how the provisional measures decided upon, ultimately correspond to a larger project of global American governance. As I will argue the US Executive Branch is likely to take a lead role in interpreting the provisional measures, further cementing their place as tools of empire.
Continue reading >>
Why Germany Should Join Sides with Israel before the ICJ in its Defense against South Africa’s Accusation of Genocide
Yesterday and today, the ICJ heard an application for provisional measures brought by South Africa, in which Israel is accused of the particularly serious crime of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza due to its reactions to the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023. This participation in the proceedings, as well as other reasons to be explained below, speak in favor of also declaring an intervention in the proceedings between South Africa and Israel – in this case, however, with the aim of supporting Israel as defendant and countering the South African argumentation.
Continue reading >>The Body of the Judge and the Suffering of the Collective
The widespread prediction among experts right now is that Israel’s chances of prevailing at the ICJ in its response to South Africa’s genocide application are slim. Let’s assume, for a moment, that the prediction is accurate. As has been reported, Israeli authorities, too, have acknowledged that there’s a real risk of an ICJ decision against Israel. What does this mean for Israel’s legal strategy? When a party is preparing to lose in a proceeding, one relevant question is what the minority opinion will look like. Aharon Barak’s appointment as an ad-hoc judge for the ICJ proceedings may reveal some of the outlines Israel is preparing for this minority opinion: even if we lose, we may still try to convince the world that the issue at hand is none other than the memory of the Holocaust. But this is a morally and politically risky choice to make.
Continue reading >>