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.
The Court’s determination that Israel’s annexation policies render its continued presence in the West Bank unlawful finds no basis in the international prohibition against the use of force. Moreover, the Court’s determination circumvents the Law of State Responsibility that determines the consequences of Israel’s unlawful annexation policies.
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”.
On July 28, 2024, the 25th Knesset entered the longest recess in its history amidst an ongoing military conflict and complex political challenges. This unprecedented situation brought to the forefront the urgent and hypothetical question of whether opposition factions in the Knesset could initiate the dissolution of the Knesset, topple the government, and return the mandate to the people. While the High Court of Justice ruling in Frij restricts convening the Knesset during recess to urgent government matters, private bills aimed at dissolving the Knesset should be an exception under certain constitutional conditions.
The decades-long campaign for recognition of a Palestinian state on the 1967-occupied territory meets the international system, however flawed, where it is. Its selling point is simple: an independent Palestinian state is the most attainable way, if not the only way, to restore integrity and dignity to the Palestinian people while maintaining a minimum standard of order.
The trauma of Auschwitz continues to reverberate in the collective consciousness of Israelis and manifests in Israeli laws across several primary domains. However, the primary impact of the Holocaust trauma on Israeli constitutional law has been the concerted efforts to prevent Israel from descending into a fascist, racist regime akin to Germany in the 1930s. The incorporation of the concept of Intolerant Democracy, which occupies a central role in Israeli constitutional law, was explicitly inspired by German history.
For this symposium essay, I will focus on the Jewish past, with its tragedies extending beyond and preceding the Holocaust as a master narrative unfolded by mnemonic constitutionalism. Specifically, I will reflect on how citizenship laws – as the foundational cluster of constitutional law in liberal democracies, including the countries without a formal constitution – have built constitutional ontologies upon the Jewish past and the “never again” theme through three central examples involving “Jewish citizens”.
“Never again” is, first and foremost, a story. It’s a story about our collective fears, anxieties, and aspirations, those moments and events that we have promised ourselves that will never be repeated. The Jewish story is interwoven with the Holocaust—the killing of six million Jews in Europe and the urgency of the re-establishment of a Jewish state to solve the problem of Jewish homelessness. Yet the constitutional and international meaning of “never again” depends on one’s position and point of view, and it changes over time. The chain reaction that began with the horrors of WWII continues to drive constitutional and international agendas. It is clear that “history talks,” but in which direction?
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.
The real protectors of the universities.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters