The first contribution of the online symposium explores the ineffectiveness of anti-racism laws. It raises the leading question whether their underperformance is a result of unrealistic expectations regarding the potential of law in general, or whether inherent flaws in legal design are the root cause.
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.
This post analyses the possibility of unseating the Israeli Government from the UN General Assembly in case of non-compliance with the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024. The Advisory Opinion provides a particularly strong legal basis – grounded primarily in the right to self-determination – to unseat Israel’s government from the General Assembly until it complies with the Opinion – as the Assembly did with South Africa fifty years ago.
Von der Leyen has recently unveiled the new structure of the next Commission. At first sight it looks like a relatively light structure composed of only three hierarchical levels: the President on top, six Executive Vice-Presidents in the middle and the Commissioners at the bottom. However, as this post will argue, the new Commission is likely to become more hierarchical and less coordinated than before. Moreover, the new structure also reflects changing priorities that will lead to a less green agenda and increased competitiveness of the EU.
On October 4th 2024 the Court of Justice issued its judgement in Front Polisario II upholding the judgement in which GC annulled Council’s decision on the conclusion of the trade agreement between European Union and Morocco. In its landmark judgement the Court acknowledged the legal standing of Front Polisario – the liberation movement representing rights of the people of Western Sahara. The Court’s findings advance the flexible and adequate approach on access to EU’s courts – and for that are worth applauding.
The CJEU interprets its Common Foreign and Security Policy jurisdiction in light of the objectives set by the Lisbon Treaty, thereby integrating part and parcel of the CFSP into the rest of the European Union acquis. This aligns the CFSP with the general principles and constitutional rules set in the Treaty. As the Court advances the integration of CFSP jurisdiction within the broader EU legal order, the judgements of 10 September 2024 in Neves 77 Solutions and KS and KD v Council and Others serve as landmark ruling for the future of judicial review in CFSP.
In the OPT Advisory Opinion, the ICJ considered that Israel’s abuse of its position as an Occupying Power, through de jure and de facto annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, renders Israel’s presence in the OPT unlawful. In determining the legal consequences of this illegal presence, the Court held by a vote of 12:3, that all States are under an obligation “not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. This holding was not accompanied by any concretization in either the Advisory Opinion or any of the many declarations and separate opinions attached to it.
In May, the Brazilian parliament introduced a bill that included a gestational age limit for performing abortions, even in cases where the pregnancy resulted from rape. In practice, the bill would criminalize women who were victims of sexual violence, especially young girls. The proposal triggered a strong reaction from civil society, which ultimately prompted parliament to withdraw the bill. The case illustrates how the Brazilian parliament has become a dangerous place for women’s sexual and reproductive rights – a situation that has worsened due to an institutional dispute between the parliament and the constitutional court.
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.
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
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters