The #ICJ’s recent advisory opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory has stirred significant debate, with concerns that the Court may have overlooked crucial factors in its decision-making process. Nicholas Tsagourias argues that the ICJ should have exercised its discretion to decline the opinion, particularly given the lack of comprehensive information and the potential undermining of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiation process established by the #OsloAgreements. By addressing the legal obligations of only one party—Israel—the Court risks aggravating the conflict and setting a problematic precedent for future international legal disputes.
This situation highlights the delicate balance between law and diplomacy in international relations. While the ICJ plays a vital role as the principal judiciary of the UN, its decisions must be carefully weighed to ensure they contribute to peace and security rather than exacerbate tensions. The advisory opinion, while authoritative, raises important questions about the role of #internationallaw in conflict resolution and the importance of exercising judicial discretion with caution.
On July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its advisory opinion (#AO) on the Occupied #Palestinian Territory. The AO raises many questions, including those regarding the Court’s jurisdiction. In his post, Nicholas Tsagourias argues that the ICJ should have exercised its discretion to refuse rendering an AO. The ICJ should be very cautious when acceding to requests for AOs. The current effect of the AO is likely to aggravate the dispute and undermine any negotiated settlement provided by the #Oslo process, to which both Israelis and Palestinians agreed. Its real-world contribution will thus likely be contrary to its intended purpose. Read more: https://lnkd.in/d652uuzR#articlesofwar#advisoryopinion#Israel
Yesterday, Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights filed written observations to the International Criminal Court addressing the relevance of the Oslo Accords to the Court’s jurisdiction over Israeli nationals.
LPHR endorses the Prosecution position that, even if they have continued legal force, the Oslo Accords do not affect the Court’s jurisdiction. We also make the further submission that, in determining their relevance, the Court must take account of the extent to which the Accords are actually alive and operational. Our submissions analyse that question by focusing on three core obligations which are emblematic: transfer of civil powers in Area C, safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank, and water management in the West Bank.
The summary statement is available at: https://lnkd.in/ecfJDUZt and the full submission is at: https://lnkd.in/eBxNgrVj
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled today that Israel's settlement policies in the occupied Palestinian territories violate international law, mandating reparations for Palestinians who have lost property and income as a result.
The ICJ concluded that Israel's transfer of settlers to the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem and the maintenance of their presence breaches the sixth paragraph of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Reading the findings of the 15-judge panel, President Nawaf Salam stated:
“The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying power through annexation and the assertion of permanent control over the occupied Palestinian territory, and the continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territory unlawful,.”
The court declared that Israel’s ongoing presence in Palestinian territories is illegal and should end “as rapidly as possible.” Additionally, it ruled that Israel must compensate for damages resulting from its occupation and noted that Israel’s exploitation of natural resources is “inconsistent” with its obligations under international law as an occupying power.
The court further ruled that “Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD,” thus finding Tel Aviv guilty of racially discriminating against Palestinians. Moreover, the court stated that Israel’s practices and policies infringe upon the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.
Although these decisions are legally binding, the court lacks means of enforcement.
Around 700,000 Israeli settlers live in roughly 300 illegal settlements.
The ruling comes in response to a 2022 request by the UNGA for the court’s opinion on the legal implications of Israel’s “prolonged occupation, settlement, and annexation” of the territories, including the West Bank and East Jerusalem, since 1967.
#InternationalCourtofJustice#HumanRights#WarOnGaza#InternationalLaw#UnitedNations#CeaseFireNow#Accountability#IsraeliTerrorism#IsraeliApartheid#GlobalPeaceSummit
For 8 months, we have been asking our elected representatives to take a principled stance and condemn violations of international law and human rights regardless of the identity of the perpetrator. What we got instead, with minor exceptions, are hypocritical and one-sided statements that reveal an inherent racism against Palestinians and their dehumanization by politicians at every level of political representation in Canada. The double standards in the application and enforcement of international law will have repercussions that extend far beyond Gaza or the Middle East. It is incumbent on all of us to demand that it be applied consistently and fairly. Please read this letter and join the signatories in demanding that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issue a clear statement of support for the work of the International Criminal Court with respect to the situation in Palestine. Canada can and must do more to put an end to the #genocide in Gaza.
#stopthegenocide#ceasefirenow#letgazalive
****************
From the outset, the international human rights system, to which international justice is integrally tied, has been premised on the foundational promise of universality. Adopted in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in article one, makes that abundantly clear: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. That is what is at stake here. The rights – and lives – of Palestinians and of Israelis are equal, and their equality must be respected and upheld under the law. In that same spirit, international justice promises that all perpetrators of human rights violations and abuses, particularly those of the gravest nature constituting crimes under international law, shall be judged and held accountable equally.
To assert that there is something objectionable about holding Israeli officials to the same standards of international criminal justice as Hamas officials is to promote a double standard and to suggest that the rights of Palestinians matter less than those of Israelis. That is a racist, dehumanizing and discriminatory approach to international justice which Canada cannot countenance in any way.
The principles of equal treatment and access to justice in the field of international criminal justice do not, by any measure, amount to an equivalence of the nature you have decried. No country, no armed group, no corporation and no individual can be allowed to stand above or apart from the law. Nothing undermines justice more – at a national or international level – than double standards and exceptionalism. This commitment must be at the core of Canada’s ICC position and foreign policy.
Senior Fellow & Adjunct Professor, GSPIA & Law Schools, University of Ottawa & Dalhousie University
Proud to be among this impressive group of 375 Canadian law professors, lawyers, academics, civil society/faith/labour leaders, former diplomats/parliamentarians and others, who have written this Open Letter to PM Justin Trudeau calling for a strong statement of Canadian support for the International Criminal Court's work with respect to Palestine/Israel.
Rather than decrying so-called 'equivalence' and thus undermining international justice, Canada needs to demonstrate unequivocal respect for the ICC's independence alongside a full commitment to cooperate with the Court as this case goes forward, including enforcing arrest warrants if that arises.
Human rights are universal and justice/accountability for human rights violations must also be universal. That has never been the approach taken to war crimes & crimes against humanity in Israel and Palestine. Surely, finally, it is time to leave decades of impunity behind and let justice come to the fore.
Canada has a long record of leadership in seeking to advance international justice, including the establishment of the ICC in 1998. There has never been a more important time to step up and show the true measure of that leadership.
In "What Must Prosecutors Prove in Trump’s NY Trial?" Quinta Jurecic, and Tyler McBrien breakdown the ICC Prosecutor’s Request for Arrest Warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders.
The authors note that ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan has requested arrest warrants for three Palestinian and two Israeli leaders for crimes under the ICC’s jurisdiction. If approved by a pre-trial chamber, any state party to the Rome Statute must arrest and surrender these individuals for trial. This development comes amid ongoing hostilities in Gaza, which continue to result in civilian casualties and displacement, with approximately 800,000 people fleeing due to a potential full-scale Israeli offensive in Rafah.
The situation in Gaza highlights severe humanitarian crises and places pressure on Israel to uphold democratic standards, particularly as its current government faces criticism for undermining the judiciary. The rise of right-wing ideologies in Israel complicates prospects for peace and impacts international perceptions of Israel’s legitimacy.
Two international courts are involved with issues concerning Israel: the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which addresses state disputes, and the International Criminal Court (ICC), which prosecutes individuals for international crimes. The ICJ's jurisdiction stems from Israel's ratification of the Genocide Convention in 1950, while the ICC's jurisdiction follows Palestine’s accession to the court's founding treaty in 2015. Recent ICJ proceedings have considered protective measures for Palestinians under the Genocide Convention. For the ICC, a pre-trial chamber must find "reasonable grounds" based on evidence to issue arrest warrants. https://lnkd.in/gJyFvt4Z
In "What Must Prosecutors Prove in Trump’s NY Trial?" Quinta Jurecic, and Tyler McBrien breakdown the ICC Prosecutor’s Request for Arrest Warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders.
The authors note that ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan has requested arrest warrants for three Palestinian and two Israeli leaders for crimes under the ICC’s jurisdiction. If approved by a pre-trial chamber, any state party to the Rome Statute must arrest and surrender these individuals for trial. This development comes amid ongoing hostilities in Gaza, which continue to result in civilian casualties and displacement, with approximately 800,000 people fleeing due to a potential full-scale Israeli offensive in Rafah.
The situation in Gaza highlights severe humanitarian crises and places pressure on Israel to uphold democratic standards, particularly as its current government faces criticism for undermining the judiciary. The rise of right-wing ideologies in Israel complicates prospects for peace and impacts international perceptions of Israel’s legitimacy.
Two international courts are involved with issues concerning Israel: the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which addresses state disputes, and the International Criminal Court (ICC), which prosecutes individuals for international crimes. The ICJ's jurisdiction stems from Israel's ratification of the Genocide Convention in 1950, while the ICC's jurisdiction follows Palestine’s accession to the court's founding treaty in 2015. Recent ICJ proceedings have considered protective measures for Palestinians under the Genocide Convention. For the ICC, a pre-trial chamber must find "reasonable grounds" based on evidence to issue arrest warrants. https://lnkd.in/gJyFvt4Z
Associate Lawyer at Cuatrecasas (Public Law & International Investment Arbitration) |
PhD Candidate at the University of Lisbon School of Law (Legal-Political Sciences)
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Knesset member and former Minister of Defense, Yoav Gallant.
What now?
The conclusions I reached several months ago regarding the Prosecutor's decision to seek arrest warrants against Israeli government officials (see https://lnkd.in/di6GpCkp) remain valid: the ICC will face significant challenges in bringing Netanyahu under the Court's authority. Serious considerations of international humanitarian law may be pertinent in countering the ratione personae diplomatic immunity that Netanyahu enjoys as Israel's head of government, without prejudice to the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) rationale and decision in the Jurisdictional Immunities case. Be that as it may, the Court and State Parties to the Rome Statute are likely to encounter substantial difficulties in circumventing the restrictions imposed by Article 98 of the Rome Statute.
This decision is likely to influence the ICJ’s handling of the genocide allegations brought by South Africa against Israel. Although the ICJ is (unfortunately) seasoned in interpreting the Genocide Convention, judicial comity will probably play a crucial role in forecasting the Court's ruling on Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
The world has its eyes set on The Hague.
Proud to be among this impressive group of 375 Canadian law professors, lawyers, academics, civil society/faith/labour leaders, former diplomats/parliamentarians and others, who have written this Open Letter to PM Justin Trudeau calling for a strong statement of Canadian support for the International Criminal Court's work with respect to Palestine/Israel.
Rather than decrying so-called 'equivalence' and thus undermining international justice, Canada needs to demonstrate unequivocal respect for the ICC's independence alongside a full commitment to cooperate with the Court as this case goes forward, including enforcing arrest warrants if that arises.
Human rights are universal and justice/accountability for human rights violations must also be universal. That has never been the approach taken to war crimes & crimes against humanity in Israel and Palestine. Surely, finally, it is time to leave decades of impunity behind and let justice come to the fore.
Canada has a long record of leadership in seeking to advance international justice, including the establishment of the ICC in 1998. There has never been a more important time to step up and show the true measure of that leadership.
Panel Discussion | The ICJ Advisory Opinion on Israel in Action: Enforcing State Accountability, Reconstituting Apartheid Frameworks, and Unseating from the UNGA
* Date: Tuesday 17th December 2024.
https://lnkd.in/dF2bXgGa
In light of the ICJ’s determination of the occupation’s illegality, this session will critically assess:
# The legal obligations of third-party states to sever complicity with Israel’s occupation and apartheid in light of the ICJ advisory opinion, UNGA resolution, and ICC arrest warrants.
# The application of international law in defining apartheid, assessing Israeli policies against this definition, and distinguishing between lawful actions within Israel’s borders and illegal activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
# Legal mechanisms for holding Israel accountable, including the potential reconstitution or adaptation of frameworks such as the Committee against Apartheid, and the role of states and international organisations in this process.
# Practical steps for implementing the ICJ advisory opinion and ensuring enforcement of international legal norms, including accountability measures and enhanced international solidarity to uphold Palestinian rights.
In "What Must Prosecutors Prove in Trump’s NY Trial?" Quinta Jurecic, and Tyler McBrien breakdown the ICC Prosecutor’s Request for Arrest Warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders.
The authors note that ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan has requested arrest warrants for three Palestinian and two Israeli leaders for crimes under the ICC’s jurisdiction. If approved by a pre-trial chamber, any state party to the Rome Statute must arrest and surrender these individuals for trial. This development comes amid ongoing hostilities in Gaza, which continue to result in civilian casualties and displacement, with approximately 800,000 people fleeing due to a potential full-scale Israeli offensive in Rafah.
The situation in Gaza highlights severe humanitarian crises and places pressure on Israel to uphold democratic standards, particularly as its current government faces criticism for undermining the judiciary. The rise of right-wing ideologies in Israel complicates prospects for peace and impacts international perceptions of Israel’s legitimacy.
Two international courts are involved with issues concerning Israel: the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which addresses state disputes, and the International Criminal Court (ICC), which prosecutes individuals for international crimes. The ICJ's jurisdiction stems from Israel's ratification of the Genocide Convention in 1950, while the ICC's jurisdiction follows Palestine’s accession to the court's founding treaty in 2015. Recent ICJ proceedings have considered protective measures for Palestinians under the Genocide Convention. For the ICC, a pre-trial chamber must find "reasonable grounds" based on evidence to issue arrest warrants. https://lnkd.in/gJyFvt4Z