16 October 2024
The Findings of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Oslo Accords and the Amici Curiae Proceedings before the ICC in the Situation of Palestine
This article focuses on the legal findings of the ICJ concerning the Oslo II Accord, and argues in favour of its relevance in deciding the jurisdictional question raised by the UK before the International Criminal Court (ICC). It also addresses whether invoking this question through a procedure of an amicus curiae during the warrant of arrest stage fits neatly within the ICC’s procedural regime, and it concludes that it does not. 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
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 19Â 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
09 October 2024
The principle of uti possidetis juris and the borders of Israel
The principle uti possidetis juris, raised in the Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Sebutinde and according to which a new State established in formerly colonial territory inherits the former (colonial) borders is untenable in the situation of Israel. The reason is that at the time of independence Israel’s leaders accepted the principle of partition. No claim was made then or subsequently that the State of Israel inherited the borders of Mandatory Palestine and legislative acts reveal that Israel even regarded territories not within the UN Partition Plan borders as occupied territory. Continue reading >>09 October 2024
The 2024 ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory – An Introduction
The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the "Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem" was a groundbreaking moment in international law. It has consequences not only for Israel, but also for third States, as well as international and regional organizations, in terms of non-recognition and non-cooperation. In this blog symposium, Palestinian, Israeli, and other scholars take stock of the Advisory Opinion and its regional and global impact. Continue reading >>01 May 2024
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 >>15 February 2024
A Shortcut at the Expense of Justice
On 31 January 2024, the International Court of Justice rendered its judgment on the merits of a case initiated by Ukraine against the Russian Federation in 2017. Ukraine alleged numerous violations by Russia of two treaties: the 1999Â International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This blog post provides a brief overview of the decision and argues that the Court sidestepped the task of reconstructing what has happened in reality via judicial fact-finding. This approach comes at the expense of several legal errors. The harsh realities of the conflict and, most importantly, the human suffering on the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia seem far removed from the grandeur of the Peace Palace. Continue reading >>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