Articles for tag: IGH, Palästina

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.

9. Oktober 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.

9. Oktober 2024

, ,

The Inadvertent Protagonist

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.

19. September 2024

, , ,

Power to the People

Das am 19. Juli 2024 veröffentlichte Gutachten des IGH zu der israelischen Besatzung Palästinas ist zurecht als Zeitenwende und bahnbrechend beschrieben sowie von einer Vielzahl von UN-Experten begrüßt worden. Das Gericht gibt der Staatengemeinschaft grünes Licht, Maßnahmen wie etwa Sanktionen und den Abbruch von Handelsbeziehungen zu ergreifen. Für die EU, dem wichtigsten Wirtschaftspartner Israels, wurden bereits konkrete Vorschläge gemacht. Dabei könnten Sanktionen gegenüber Unternehmen oder gewalttätigen Siedler:innen aufgrund der etwas geringeren politischen Brisanz erfolgversprechender sein als an die israelische Regierung gerichtete Sanktionen.

13. August 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.

23. Juli 2024

, , ,

Giving Covenants Swords

The classical Hobbesian critique of international law famously asserts that “covenants, without the sword, are but words.” Accordingly, given Israel’s persistent non-compliance with the ICJ’s provisional measures in South Africa v. Israel, on 29 May 2024, South Africa requested “the Security Council to give effect to the Court’s judgments” under Article 41 of the ICJ Statute. This post shows why the discussions on whether the Council lacks the statutory authority to supervise and enforce the Court’s provisional measures under the ICJ Statute overlook the broader point. Namely, the Order on provisional measures is the perfect legal evidence for the Council to trigger its powers under Chapter VII and thus end the humanitarian calamity in Gaza.

10. Juli 2024

, , , , , , ,

Consensus, at what Cost?

After four applications for provisional measures, three sets of formal orders and two rounds of oral hearings, on Friday night, the International Court of Justice in South Africa v. Israel delivered a long-awaited Order. It is, to be frank, most unsatisfactory. While the Court is known for its “Solomonic” decisions, which try to give each party a little of what they asked for at times to no one’s satisfaction, this is not a maritime boundary delimitation where equidistance can be imposed in pursuit of impartiality.

25. Mai 2024

, ,

Why the Provisional Measures Order in Nicaragua v. Germany severely limits Germany’s ability to transfer arms to Israel

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.

2. Mai 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.

1. Mai 2024

, , ,

Third Provisional Measures in South Africa v Israel

On March 28, 2024, the ICJ issued its third provisional measures order in South Africa v Israel. The Court ordered further, more pointed, measures towards Israel to ensure the provision of humanitarian aid throughout Gaza. In this blog post, I consider that the right to be heard in the course of this third order has not been fully guaranteed since the ICJ based its ruling on the international reports which were not provided, known, and considered by either of the parties. Moreover, I argue that the ICJ underscored its decision on humanitarian law rather than obligations to prevent genocide.

11. April 2024

, , , , ,