Articles for tag: CERDICERDRacial DiscriminationStructural DiscriminationVölkerrecht

Addressing Racial Discrimination Through International Law

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination’s design makes it a very promising legal instrument to combat racial discrimination in particular regarding its structural manifestations. Expecting this legal framework to be of use in combatting racism is not unrealistic, but is hindered by the lack of visibility of the Convention, a lack of resources for the Convention system, and, above all, the lack of political will of States to effectively implement their obligations under the Convention.

The ICJ Advisory Opinion and Israeli Law

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.

The Findings of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Oslo Accords and the Amici Curiae Proceedings before the ICC in the Situation of Palestine

This article focuses on the legal findings of the ICJ concerning the Oslo II Accord, and argues in favour of its relevance in deciding the jurisdictional question raised by the UK before the International Criminal Court (ICC). It also addresses whether invoking this question through a procedure of an amicus curiae during the warrant of arrest stage fits neatly within the ICC’s procedural regime, and it concludes that it does not.

Third State obligations in the ICJ Advisory Opinion

What are the possible implications of the Advisory Opinion for the United Kingdom and Cyprus with regard to the UK’s arms and surveillance support to Israel through its military bases in Cyprus? This post argues that the third State obligations identified by the Court, including the duty not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the illegal situation, also apply to the current war in Gaza.

Limiting ‘Security’ as a Justification in the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion

While international law accepts that States may employ otherwise prohibited actions in exceptional circumstances and within certain constraints, the Advisory Opinion firmly affirms that security cannot justify illegal actions such as annexation or prolonged occupation. The rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination, cannot be compromised by security claims. The Advisory Opinion serves to limit State practices predicated upon security when those practices violate essential rights and when the security claim is based upon an illegal situation created by the very State which invokes security concerns.

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”.

Angriff im Deckmantel der Selbstverteidigung

Die Regierung der Islamischen Republik Iran feuerte am 1. Oktober 2024 Raketen auf Israel. Hierbei gab es mehrere Verletzte, ein Palästinenser im Westjordanland kam ums Leben.  Der Iran  beruft sich auf das Selbstverteidigungsrecht aus Artikel 51 der UN-Charta als Reaktion auf die Tötung von Führungskräften seiner sogenannten „Achse des Widerstands“ durch Israel. Damit berufen sich beide Parteien auf das Recht zur Selbstverteidigung. Doch das Selbstverteidigungsrecht einer Partei schließt gleichzeitig das Recht der anderen aus. Wer kann sich also tatsächlich auf dieses Recht berufen?

Streumunition und deutsches Recht

Wie aus neueren Recherchen des NDR hervorgeht, gibt es Hinweise darauf, dass von einem US-Stützpunkt in Deutschland aus Streumunition in die Ukraine geliefert werden könnte. Wie sich das Völkerrecht zum Einsatz von Streumunition durch die Ukraine verhält, wurde auf dem Verfassungsblog vor einiger Zeit bereits beleuchtet. Eine etwaige Lieferung von Streumunition aus Deutschland in die Ukraine wirft aber auch Fragen aus nationaler Perspektive auf. Auch für NATO-Partner auf deutschem Staatsgebiet gilt ein Streumunitionsverbot, das sich aber wegen der Immunität der ausländischen Streitkräfte kaum durchsetzen lässt.