Search
Generic filters
31 January 2024

South Africa v Israel: A Solomonic Decision as “Constructive Ambiguity”

In its wise Order of 26 January 2024, the ICJ managed to make a virtue out of a necessity: Israel was not prohibited from continuing its combat operations but was reminded of its strict compliance with international humanitarian law and its obligation to avoid genocide. At the same time, the ICJ reiterated the requirement to respect the most fundamental rights and the core of humanitarian law to all warring factions. Despite still essentially being a court for inter-state disputes – it put the individual, the human being, at the centre. Henceforth, the ICJ’s order of provisional measures is a Solomonic decision at its best and a further step towards the “humanization of international law”. Continue reading >>
0
03 March 2022

Strasbourg Has No Chance and Uses It

On 28 February 2022, Ukraine lodged a request for interim measures against Russia before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Ukraine referred to “massive human rights violations being committed by the Russian troops in the course of the military aggression against the sovereign territory of Ukraine”. Within one day of the Ukrainian request, the Strasbourg Court granted “urgent interim measures” under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Continue reading >>
0
15 September 2020

That Depends

The controversial debate about Eleanor Sharpston’s position as Advocate General has raised a lot of questions: political as well as legal. Many of the legal questions have not been decided by the Courts, the law is ambiguous, and the circumstances with one Member leaving the European Union are unprecedented. And yet, the Court of Justice treated those questions as if the answers were straightforward and clear-cut. In doing so, the Court seems to have ignored the complexity of the legal questions and thereby undercut the effectiveness of the proceedings for interim measures. Continue reading >>
Go to Top