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
31 October 2024
Maintaining Resilience in Human Rights Interpretation
In the Religious Movement Advisory Opinion, the European Court of Human Rights established detailed risk and proportionality assessment criteria that deviate from its previous case law in individual applications. The Court thus seems eager to embrace its standard-setting role and the spirit of dialogue inherent in the advisory opinion procedure, indicating some potential for resilience in rights interpretation within this sensitive context. Continue reading >>
0
15 October 2024
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 >>
0
13 October 2024
Security Considerations, the Duty to End Belligerent Occupations and the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Israeli practices and policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
This contribution discusses three possible rationales for the Court’s rejection of the relevance of Israel’s security concerns: Lack of proof of serious and legitimate security concerns by Israel, the insufficiency of broad security concerns to justify the continued use of force, and the insufficiency of broad security concerns to deny realization of Palestinian self-determination. As long as international law doctrine on the duty to end a belligerent occupation despite the prevalence of serious security concerns remains contested, and as long as security conditions in the region remain extremely unstable, it is unlikely that a withdrawal will be deemed practicable Continue reading >>23 July 2024
Die Zeitenwende beginnt im Nahen Osten
Nach den vielbeachteten Entscheidungen des Internationalen Gerichtshofs (IGH) über einstweilige Anordnungen im Gaza-Konflikt erweckte das Gutachten vom 19. Juli 2024 zur Illegalität der israelischen Besatzung ein verhältnismäßig geringes Medienecho. Dies steht im eklatanten Gegensatz zu seinem Inhalt. Der internationale Gerichtshof bewertete nämlich kurzerhand die gesamte israelische Besatzung des palästinensischen Gebiets, einschließlich Gaza, für rechtswidrig. Dies dürfte erhebliche völkerrechtliche, völkerrechtspolitische, geopolitische und erinnerungspolitische Konsequenzen nach sich ziehen. Continue reading >>25 May 2024
The ITLOS Advisory Opinion and Marine Geoengineering
The ITLOS advisory opinion does little to resolve the long-standing uncertainty regarding the legal status of marine geoengineering activities. On the contrary, the opinion raises more questions than it answers. ITLOS seems content to leave those questions to others. Indeed, in the advisory opinion, ITLOS noted that “marine geoengineering has been the subject of discussions and regulations in various fora,” including the London Convention and Protocol. But after nearly twenty years, the regulatory framework for marine geoengineering adopted by the parties to the London Convention and Protocol is still not, strictly speaking, legally binding. Perhaps the advisory opinion will spur the parties into action. Continue reading >>
0
18 January 2024
Leading the Way
There is little doubt that climate change in all its facets is one of the most pressing global issues of our time. Increasingly, we see international and regional treaty bodies addressing it. Much has been written about ongoing procedures in front of the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, other regional developments, such as the African Commission’s study on the impact of climate change or the request for an advisory opinion on the climate emergency to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) have regrettably received less attention. As we have submitted an amicus curiae to the latter proceeding, we want to contribute to its prominence and present the core arguments of our intervention to the Court. In particular, we highlight the nexus between climate change and forced displacement from a complementary protection perspective. Continue reading >>
0
13 April 2023
A Glimpse into More Equitable International Governance
On March 29, the United Nations General Assembly passed a landmark resolution asking the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on state obligations relating to climate change and the consequences of breaching them under several sources of international law, including the UN Charter, human rights treaties, and international customary law. The import of both the request and the opinion, however, is not just about Earth’s climate system and the extent of state obligations for protecting it; it is also about the potential for more equitable, just, and effective international governance. Continue reading >>
0