Verfassungs- und völkerrechtliche Aspekte bewaffneter Konflikte, Kriegsverbrechen, humanitäres Völkerrecht, Militäroperationen und Konfliktgovernance. Umfasst verfassungsrechtliche Kriegsbefugnisse, humanitäres Völkerrecht, Recht bewaffneter Konflikte, Friedensdurchsetzung und verfassungsrechtliche Grenzen militärischen Handelns.
The accepted framework for settling the Palestine question through bilateral negotiations, in legal terms, does not survive the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024. The degree to which the Advisory Opinion catalyses a new political framework remains to be seen. But the Advisory Opinion gives the Palestinians newfound agency in shaping one.
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.
Der infolge des terroristischen Überfalls und Massenmords durch die Hamas ausgebrochene Gaza-Krieg wirft unentwegt auch rechtliche Fragen auf. Schon mehrfach hat sich dabei die deutsche Bundesregierung vor Gericht wiedergefunden. Als zweitgrößter Rüstungslieferant musste sich die Bundesrepublik vor dem IGH und deutschen Gerichten für die Unterstützung Israels angesichts zahlreicher Berichte über dessen völkerrechtswidrige Kriegsführung rechtfertigen. Jetzt hat das Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt im Eilrechtsschutz entschieden: Bestehende Genehmigungen für deutsche Rüstungsexporte nach Israel dürfen weiter genutzt werden. Die Entscheidung lässt inhaltlich viele Fragen offen und wirft methodisch einige weitere auf. Sie spricht grund- und menschenrechtliche Möglichkeiten an, wo keine bestehen. Und verwirft sie vorschnell, wo sie durchaus weiterführen könnten.
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.
Today, various commentators are asking about the purpose behind the pager attack and the subsequent communication device attack yesterday. The New York Times’s detailed report of the incidents announces in its title that Israel has built a “Modern-Day Trojan Horse”. The idea comes from Greek history, but perhaps a better comparison might be found in Greek myth. Prometheus stole fire from the gods. Today, Israel is attempting to develop secularized but God-like technological capabilities, at least in terms of their ability to generate surprise and change reality overnight. Yet, by discarding moral or political considerations in favor of pyrotechnics, Israel risks Prometheus’s ultimate fate: punishment.
In a recent contribution to this platform, Kai Ambos, Stefanie Bock, and a number of other distinguished German scholars have presented a compelling and highly topical plea for a consistent and effective application of the Rome Statute "without fear or favour" by Germany, one of its 124 States Parties. A similar risk of selectivity concerning the question of cooperation with the ICC can be observed in the present public and political discourse in Austria. I argue that an 'à la carte' approach to cooperation with the Court in matters of arrest and surrender, as partially indicated in the current debate, is untenable when adopting the ICC's recent jurisprudence on the horizontal inapplicability of head of State immunity, irrespective of the prevailing political circumstances.
Am 20.5.2024 hat Karim A.A. Khan, der Ankläger des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs, Haftbefehle gegen den israelischen Premierminister Netanyahu und Verteidigungsminister Gallant sowie drei Hamas-Führungsfiguren in der Palästina-Situation beantragt. Die Bundesregierung argumentiert in ihrer am 9.8.2024 veröffentlichten Stellungnahme, dass Israel die echte Möglichkeit und mehr Zeit gegeben werden müsse, um selbst strafverfolgerisch tätig werden zu können. In der Stellungnahme zeigt sich eine starke, fast bedingungslose Unterstützung Israels, die einem Primat der Politik über das Recht nahekommt
In June 2024, the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission (IHFFC) announced that it had been mandated to investigate an incident in the Gaza-Israel conflict. Often dubbed “the Sleeping Beauty”, the IHFFC conducted its first investigation in 2017, twenty-six years after its establishment in 1991. Despite being sidelined for almost three decades, the IHFFC has the potential to reinvent itself as a crucial tool for monitoring compliance with international humanitarian law.
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.
As the storm of ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan’s request for arrest warrants loomed and landed on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, ardent supporters of Israel within the U.S. and U.K. governments and beyond appear to have seized upon a jurisdictional objection. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is reported as saying that the “ICC has no jurisdiction over this matter.” The U.K. Foreign Secretary David Cameron is reported to have said the same thing. There is a basic flaw, though, in the treaty-based objection to the ICC jurisdiction as has been made. It ignores the nature of the mandate of international criminal tribunals as mechanisms for the effective preservation of the basic fabric of the international order.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters