Zerstörte Städte sind mehr als Trümmer. Sie sind gezielte Angriffe auf soziale Vielfalt und urbane Identität. Der Begriff „Urbizid“ rückt diese systematische Vernichtung ins Zentrum völkerrechtlicher Debatten. Doch das geltende Recht greift zu kurz: Zwischen Eigentumsschutz und Kriegsverbrechen bleibt eine Schutzlücke. Könnte ein neuer völkerstrafrechtlicher Tatbestand für den urbanen Lebensraum diese Leerstelle endlich schließen?
A tempting but corrosive thought about Israeli politics – and about many other places – is that we have already embarked on a one-way road to authoritarianism. This “authoritarian determinism”, sometimes presented as a kind of seasoned realism, assumes that political trajectories continue unidirectionally. There is a world of difference between the many political contexts in which authoritarianism seems to be on the rise. And yet, a common question seems to be asked: in the face of authoritarian determinism, what can be saved of the democratic process? Until when does it make sense to hold on?
Genocidal intent does not necessarily pop, prefabricated, out of the perpetrator’s state’s head. It emerges – gradually, often unevenly – as a product of action, omission, emotion, and political opportunity. A war that once had legal justification as defence can thus harden into something else: the destruction of a group as such. This is as true in the specific conditions of Gaza, as it is as a matter of principle.
“Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.” This was the claim raised by South Africa before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague just two and a half months after Hamas' large-scale terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. South Africa alleges that Israel's military counteroffensive is not (primarily) directed against Hamas, but rather aims to destroy the group of Palestinians in Gaza as such. This accusation carries significant political and legal weight. However, proving the necessary intent to destroy is difficult; it should not be accepted lightly. At any rate, as Israel's warfare continues and becomes increasingly brutal, the evidence for genocide is mounting.
Israel begehe in Gaza einen Völkermord. Diesen Vorwurf trug Südafrika bereits rund zweieinhalb Monate nach dem großangelegten Terroranschlag der Hamas auf Israel vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof (IGH) in Den Haag vor. Die militärische Gegenoffensive Israels richte sich nicht (primär) gegen die Hamas, sondern ziele darauf ab, die Gruppe der Palästinenser als solche zu zerstören. Dieser Vorwurf wiegt politisch wie rechtlich schwer. Die hierfür notwendige Zerstörungsabsicht ist nur schwer nachzuweisen und darf nicht vorschnell bejaht werden. Mit zunehmender Dauer und Brutalisierung der israelischen Kriegsführung verdichten sich jedoch die Indizien für das Vorliegen eines Genozids.
Since the ICC announced arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, the world has started to observe open equivocation from France and other European states about executing those arrest warrants. This inevitably raises the question whether it had been too easy in the past for nations of the West to profess “unflinching support” for the ICC when all the accused persons were Africans; even though the conducts of some of them (consider, for instance, the defendants from Kenya and Côte d’Ivoire) came nowhere close to the extravagant cruelty on full display in Gaza, despite rulings of the International Court of Justice and the relentless appeals of the UN Secretary General.
Das Verfahren zwischen Südafrika und Israel vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof zählt vielleicht zu den bedeutendsten in der Geschichte des Gerichts. Bereits zehn Staaten sind dem Verfahren beigetreten oder haben ihren Beitritt beantragt. Deutschland kündigte seine Absicht zur Intervention bereits kurz nach der Klageeinreichung Südafrikas an, noch bevor es selbst in einen Rechtsstreit mit Nicaragua über die Unterstützung Israels verwickelt wurde. Eine politisch motivierte Intervention unter Art. 63 des IGH-Status würde sich jedoch dem Vorwurf der Doppelmoral aussetzen. Erweiterten Handlungsspielraum eröffnet dagegen eine Intervention unter Art. 62 des IGH-Status.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), a UN body essentially responsible for resolving inter-state disputes, has been increasingly asked to consider matters with implications for individual criminal responsibility – a predominant concern of international criminal law. In some cases, the link is direct; for instance, in the last two years, the Genocide Convention has been invoked twice on behalf of Ukraine and Gaza. Although for the ICJ, its application is a question of State responsibility, it will give rise to questions of individual responsibility in other international and domestic fora.
“Never Again” is one of those slogans on which practically everyone can agree. How can one not? (Unless you belong to the flat-earth Holocaust-denial lunatic fringe). When we use “Never Again” it is, of course, a shorthand to the enormity of German National Socialism. The pledge “Never Again” is absolute in time: Never again. It is absolute in space too: “That” cannot and should not ever take place anywhere. It is universal: It bridges Left and Right, North and South, Rich and Poor. Standing at the barricades under the “Never Again” banner is both powerful and self-empowering. But herein lies its potential for abuse. What exactly is the “that” which must never happen again?
In an application before the International Court of Justice brought by Nicaragua against Germany, Nicaragua requested that the ICJ indicate provisional measures as a matter of extreme urgency with respect to Germany’s ‘participation in the ongoing plausible genocide and serious breaches of international humanitarian law and other peremptory norms of general international law occurring in the Gaza Strip’. While Nicaragua did not get any of the provisional measures requested, the request for provisional measures may nevertheless have achieved its aim of preventing Germany from providing arms to Israel for use in the Gaza Strip.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters