Few advocates of Palestinian liberation have become as familiar a name as Dr. Hanan Ashrawi. A principled activist and gifted speaker with a formidable academic background, she rose to international prominence during the First Intifada in 1988. Later, with the start of the Madrid Conference in 1991, she caught the world’s attention as the official representative of the Palestinian delegation.
Fraenkel’s The Dual State (1941) and Neumann’s Behemoth (1942) offer two diverging accounts of the legal reality under National Socialism. The controversy between the two is important not only for the Gaza War, but also for the future of international humanitarian law writ large. The picture, according to which if lawyers had more power post-World War I, democracies in Europe would not have collapsed, affected both constitutional and international law. Yet, the claim that Weimar and the world could have been saved if only the law and lawyers had possessed more power is inaccurate. We are now reliving the consequences of this mistake in the Gaza War.
In its meeting on 15 July 2025, the Council of the EU failed to adopt concrete measures vis-à-vis Israel, limiting itself to an “exchange of views on an inventory of possible follow-up measures”. This hesitant approach stands in contrast to clear indications that Israel is in breach of its human rights obligations under Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement (AA), and to the EU’s own obligation to work towards consolidating human rights and the principles of public international law pursuant to Article 21 TEU. While a suspension of the entire AA was never really foreseeable, an important question relates to the voting threshold within the Council that would apply to such a decision relating to the AA.
Am 23. Juni 2025 trafen sich die 27 Außenminister der Europäischen Union (EU) in Brüssel, um über die Zukunft des Assoziierungsabkommens mit Israel (AA EU–Israel) zu beraten. Das Außenministertreffen selbst führte zu keiner Entscheidung über eine mögliche Aussetzung des Abkommens. Gemäß Art. 21 EUV ist die EU jedoch verpflichtet, im Einklang mit dem Völkerrecht zu handeln und bei festgestellten Menschenrechtsverletzungen auf der Grundlage des AA EU–Israel zu reagieren. Andernfalls riskiert die EU, gegen ihr eigenes Primärrecht zu verstoßen.
Wer sich von rechtszerstörenden Fiktionen heute ein Bild machen will, lese das kürzlich veröffentlichte und inzwischen rechtskräftige Urteil der 9. Kammer des Verwaltungsgerichts Regensburg vom 7. Oktober 2024. Es ist eine der ersten bekannt gewordenen gerichtlichen Entscheidungen, die zu der im Juni 2024 in Kraft getretenen Reform des Staatsangehörigkeitsrechts ergangen sind.
The Knesset’s legislative work since October 2023 has included several legislative initiatives that may be creating a framework for furthering systemic discrimination against Arab Israelis. These new laws could pose a dangerous new precedent in Israel, stripping the right to equality and human dignity of their meaning and threatening the already fragile state of democracy as we know it.
The arrest warrants by the ICC for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity are a red card for the Israeli legal system indicating grave doubts whether the Israeli legal system fulfills the complementarity requirement. Paradoxically, an indictment on the Israeli justice system arrives after the Israeli Supreme Court has recently fortified its position. Yet, the more the Court expanded its reach into the political arena, the less it could fulfill its core role of defending basic human rights.
In this blog post, we discuss two pieces of advice about the legal and political consequences for the Netherlands arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. These are the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion of July 2024 and the Advisory Letter from the Dutch Advisory Council on International Affairs of October 2024. Both pieces of advice provide concrete recommendations, many of which, in our view, require fundamental changes in the current Dutch policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Dutch Government is constitutionally obliged to provide a meaningful response to both these pieces of advice. So far, however, it has failed to do so.
As political analysts debate the reasons for Trump’s victory, one contributing factor is surely the utter failure of Biden’s Gaza policies. As the US has continued to fund an Israeli war of annihilation against Gaza, the democratic ticket became a hard sell for many who care about Palestinians. Yet, Gaza has also triggered a veritable renaissance of international litigation. With Gaza destroyed and Trump in the White House, this tension may have reached a terminal point. And yet, I argue, the ghost of a rule-based order lingers in our political imagination despite its inability to shape outcomes.
This post examines the relationship between the Advisory Opintion and Israeli law with respect to the duty to distinguish between Israel and the OPT. While the Opinion requires States to distinguish between Israel and the OPT in their dealings with Israel, and to omit acts that may strengthen Israel’s hold of the Territories, calls for such distinction are a civil tort under Israeli law, and those making them can be denied entry to Israel. As a result, Israelis are unlikely to support the Opinion. This will contribute to the growing gap between the international discourse and the domestic discourse in Israel with respect to the OPT.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters