Articles for tag: BlockadeGazaHumanitäres VölkerrechtIsrael-Gaza-KriegSiege

Respect for International Law in Gaza

Since October 2023, a group of eminent Israeli international law scholars has written numerous letters and memos expressing concerns over many aspects of the Gaza war. Given the importance of these documents both in doctrinal terms and in highlighting the work of these colleagues, we have asked to publish them. So far, only one of the letters has been officially published. Readers interested in more detail can access the full text of the respective documents, which are hyperlinked and archived on Verfassungsblog.

Beyond the Fog of War

Superlatives are often overused - but in the case of the Grand Chamber judgment in Ukraine, The Netherlands v Russia, delivered on 9 July 2025, they are not only justified but arguably inadequate. This case stands out as one of the most consequential and complex in the history of the European Court of Human Rights. It addresses systemic human rights violations committed in the context of an ongoing international armed conflict and during a prolonged period of occupation.

Nicht um jeden Preis

Die Kriege in der Ukraine und im Nahen Osten prägen unsere Gegenwart. Für viele symbolisieren sie die Auflösung der internationalen Rechtsordnung. Angesichts der Handlungsunfähigkeit des UN Sicherheitsrates erstarkt dabei das Selbstverteidigungsrecht nach Art. 51 SVN mit seinen Schranken der Erforderlichkeit und Verhältnismäßigkeit zum entscheidenden Maßstab für die Einhegung militärischer Gewalt. Doch kann der unbestimmte Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatz in einem dezentralen Rechtssystem überhaupt Steuerungswirkung entfalten?

Verhältnismäßigkeit als allgemeines Prinzip des Völkerrechts

Im Israel-Gaza-Konflikt nach dem Terrorangriff der Hamas vom 7. Oktober 2023 hat sich die Frage der Verhältnismäßigkeit vielfach gestellt. Aber auch im Blick auf die (zweite) Amtseinführung von Donald J. Trump als US-Präsident am 20. Januar 2025 und die von ihm angekündigten massiven Zollerhöhungen in Richtung Kanada, Mexiko und China drängt sich die Frage auf, ob es dafür von Völkerrechts wegen Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrenzen gibt. Ob Verhältnismäßigkeit ein allgemeines Prinzip des Völkerrechts darstellt, das sich hier fruchtbar machen ließe, ist jedoch umstritten.

Security Considerations, the Duty to End Belligerent Occupations and the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Israeli practices and policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

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

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.

A Seismic Change

It is no understatement to say that the 19 July 2024 ICJ Advisory Opinion constitutes a seismic change in the international law and practice on the question of Palestine. In one fell swoop, the ICJ has shifted what was hitherto an almost exclusive focus of the international community on how Israel has administered its 57-year occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory under International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, to the requirement that Israel end its occupation of that territory as “rapidly as possible”.