#icj ruling legally binding

[news4dzhozhar]

‘ICJ’s Rulings on Israel are Binding’ – UN Secretary-General

[sayruq]

Judges at the top United Nations court ordered Israel to halt its offensive in the southern Gaza city of Rafah and withdraw from the enclave, in a case brought by South Africa accusing Israel of genocide, citing “immense risk” to the Palestinian population. Friday’s decision marked the third time this year the 15-judge panel has issued preliminary orders seeking to rein in the death toll and alleviate humanitarian suffering in Gaza. While orders are legally binding, the court has no police to enforce them. Reading out a ruling by the International Court of Justice or World Court, the body’s president, Nawaf Salam, said provisional measures ordered by the court in March did not fully address the situation in the besieged Palestinian enclave now, and conditions had been met for a new emergency order. Israel must “immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” Salam said, and called the humanitarian situation in Rafah “disastrous”. South Africa’s lawyers had asked the ICJ in The Hague last week to impose emergency measures, saying Israel’s attacks on Rafah must be stopped to ensure the survival of the Palestinian people.

[thatdebaterguy]

I recently heard that the ICJ, which is frankly a complete joke of a system anyway, has come to what is an incredibly ambiguous ruling on whether genocide is being committed. Well ambiguous except for the fact they didn't say there was genocide taking place. The official statement can be interpreted in many ways, so I'll show it here.

A lot of people have taken this message as "Palestine is enduring a genocide and Israel needs to stop." but they're doing what happens in many legal situations where they're using non-binding and purposefully exaggerated language on what could've been a simple statement. It's basically saying Palestinians have rights to be protected from genocide, which is a possibility, and should be prevented. This.. is stuff we already knew. Obviously Palestinians have human rights, obviously genocide should be prevented, and obviously it's not actually happening. There is a very real risk, as there is in almost every conflict, of genocide happening, especially since Israel has the capacity to wipe Gaza off the face of the earth. This ruling is basically another emphasis that Israel should do more to prevent this conflict from going from violent and thorough, to mass bloodshed and genocide, which for the time being they're managing that at debatable levels, and of course there's room for improvement. but it's war, not an exam, you can't memorise a few quotes and hope everything is fine. Anyway, there is no genocide, so stop using exaggerative and emotive language to try get pity points for your cause. Stick to the facts.

[memecucker]

January 31, 2024, Oakland, CA – After a federal court heard arguments and testimony in the case Defense for Children International – Palestine v. Biden on Friday, January 26, charging the Biden administration with failing in its duty to prevent, and otherwise aiding and abetting, the unfolding genocide in Gaza, a federal judge found that Israel is plausibly engaging in genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza and that the United States is providing “unflagging support” for the massive attacks on Palestinian civilians in contravention of international law. The court’s decision follows a historic ruling by the International Court of Justice last Friday, which also found the Israeli government was plausibly engaged in a genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, and which issued a series of emergency measures Israel must take to end its genocidal campaign.

The U.S. court based its assessment on the “uncontroverted” live testimony of seven Palestinian witnesses, including one from Gaza and one from Ramallah, who testified firsthand to Israel’s killing of their nieces, cousins, aunts, uncles, elders, and members of their community, to the mass displacement of their families reminiscent of the 1948 Nakba, and to the devastating conditions of life in their homeland as the siege leads to mass starvation. The court also relied on the expert opinion of genocide and Holocaust scholars who confirmed that Israel’s military assault and totalizing humanitarian destruction bears the hallmarks of a genocide based on legal and historical precedent. Nevertheless, the court reluctantly dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds. While the court recognized that the prohibitions on genocide are fundamental and binding international law, this was a “rare” instance where “the preferred outcome is inaccessible to the Court” and it found it lacked power to resolve the case because it implicated executive decision-making in the area of foreign policy.

Delivering a historic rebuke of Israel and the United States for its flouting of the Genocide Convention, the court wrote:

Both the uncontroverted testimony of the Plaintiffs and the expert opinion proffered at the hearing on these motions as well as statements made by various officers of the Israeli government indicate that the ongoing military siege in Gaza is intended to eradicate a whole people and therefore plausibly falls within the international prohibition against genocide.

The court recognized the substantial role of the United States in furthering the genocide and noted that “as the ICJ has found, it is plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide” and, therefore, the “Court implores Defendants to examine the results of their unflagging support of the military siege against the Palestinians in Gaza.”

The court stated, “It is every individual’s obligation to confront the current siege in Gaza.”

[argyrocratie]

(...)

"Set the scene for us: what is the ICJ, and why is the hearing taking place there?

The 1945 UN Charter — signed by all UN members, including Israel — affirms that the ICJ is the UN’s supreme legal organ. The Constitution establishes two powers for the Court: issuing advisory opinions, and ruling in cases between states. The Court’s verdicts are binding on the states that have signed the UN Constitution. A state can agree in an ad hoc manner that a particular dispute will be litigated by the ICJ, or invoke signed treaties containing a clause that establishes ICJ jurisdiction over disputes relating to those treaties. 

Israel has always had reservations about the jurisdiction clause, and has refrained from agreeing to ICJ jurisdiction in all the hundreds of treaties it has signed, except one: the Genocide Convention. Article 9 of the Convention stipulated that if disagreements arise between the members over the Convention’s authority or interpretation, the ICJ is the place to hear them. 

ICJ decrees are enforced by the UN Security Council. Chapters 6 and 7 of the UN Charter allow for a range of sanctions against countries that violate the Court’s ruling, such as economic sanctions, arms embargoes, and military intervention. The latter is rare but it has happened, for example in the first Gulf War.

Why did Israel sign up to ICJ jurisdiction in the Genocide Convention?

I’m not a legal historian; I can only guess. Israel was one of the initiators of the treaty, and historically one can understand why Israel would have pushed for such a treaty in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Secondly, I think that back then, the popular Israeli notion that we do not let gentiles judge us had not yet developed. We are talking about an era in which the international system had recently decided to establish a Jewish state. Maybe there was a little more trust in that system back then.

What constitutes a violation of the Convention?

(...)

It is defined as an act of extermination, or creating conditions that will annihilate a particular group with the intention of eradicating that group or even a distinct part of it.

The Convention, which was integrated into Israeli law in 1950, states that a soldier or civilian who kills a person, even one, while aware that he is part of a system aimed at annihilation, is guilty of the crime of genocide. In Israeli law, the punishment for this is the death penalty. This also applies to those who conspire to commit genocide, those who incite genocide, and those who attempt to participate in genocide.

What is South Africa basing its lawsuit on?

South Africa bases its accusation on two elements. One is Israel’s conduct. It cites a great deal of statistics about the indiscriminate, disproportionate attacks on civilian infrastructure, as well as about starvation, the huge number of casualties, and the humanitarian catastrophe in the Strip — horrifying statistics that the Israeli public is barely exposed to, because the mainstream media here does not bring them to us.

The second and more difficult element to prove is intent. South Africa is trying to prove the intent through nine dense pages of references to quotes by senior Israeli officials, from the president to the prime minister, government ministers, Knesset members, generals, and military personnel. I counted more than 60 quotes there — quotes about eradicating Gaza, flattening it, dropping an atomic bomb on it, and all the things we’ve gotten used to hearing in recent months.

South Africa’s case does not rely only on the fact that some Israel leaders have made genocidal statements. It further charges that Israel has done nothing in response to these statements: it hasn’t condemned the statements, it hasn’t dismissed from office the people who expressed them, it hasn’t opened disciplinary proceedings against them, and it certainly hasn’t opened criminal investigations. This, as far as South Africa is concerned, is a very strong argument.

Even if we haven’t heard the IDF Chief of Staff or the General of the Southern Command say these things, and we don’t have an operational order that says, “Go and destroy Gaza,” the very fact that these statements have been made by senior Israeli officials without sanction or condemnation sufficiently expresses Israel’s intention.

South Africa also pulled a little legal stunt to get here, correct?

Yes. The jurisdiction of the Court is determined when a dispute arises between the parties over the interpretation or application of the Convention. South Africa sent several letters to the Israeli government saying, “You are committing genocide.” Israel responded, “No we aren’t.” So South Africa said, “Okay, we have a dispute over the interpretation of the Convention.” That’s how it got the authority.

What can we learn from similar ICJ cases in the past, such as those regarding genocides in Bosnia and Myanmar?

First of all, we know from these cases that the burden of proof on South Africa is significantly lower for obtaining an interim order than for ultimately proving that Israel is committing genocide. We also know that this case will continue for years: the Bosnia case took 14 years; Gambia v. Myanmar is still ongoing. But the procedure for an interim order is fast.

Gambia filed its case against Myanmar on behalf of the Organization of Islamic States. It asked for an interim order stating that Myanmar must cease its military operations [against the Rohingya people]. The Court ruled that at this stage of the hearings, it did not need to determine whether the crime of genocide had been committed. What it needs to decide is whether, without an interim order, there is a real danger that the prohibitions set out in the Genocide Convention will be violated.

An interesting interim order was issued in that case, which I think has a good chance of being issued to Israel as well — not in the context of military activity, but of incitement. The Court’s order also required Myanmar to take enforcement actions and submit reports to the ICJ and Gambia on what it was doing to prevent genocide. As for the cessation of Myanmar’s military activity, this matter went to the Security Council, where both Russia and China threatened vetoes, but Western countries imposed sanctions and a military embargo anyway.

So even if South Africa fails to make the Court issue an interim order to stop Israel’s military activity, it could be that in the context of incitement — which enjoys full immunity in Israel — the Court will say that Israel needs to do something.

(...)

I know lawyers don’t like to wager on the results of court hearings, but if the ICJ does produce an interim order, what will that mean for Israel?

If the Court issues an order, the question is of course whether Israel will obey it or not. Knowing Israel, I expect that it will not obey the order, unless it can present the ending of hostilities as the result of its own independent decision, unrelated to the Court order. 

There are good reasons for Israel to do this, because disobeying an ICJ order brings things to the UN Security Council. It’s true that the United States has a veto there, and therefore a resolution to impose sanctions on Israel would most likely be blocked. But vetoing an ICJ order regarding concerns that genocide is taking place would come at an enormous political price for the U.S. government, both domestically and internationally. 

The Biden administration wants to portray itself as a government that sees human rights as one of its pillars. So it is likely that the United States would only veto such a resolution while imposing a significant cost on Israel in order to justify doing so, such as allowing the residents of northern Gaza to return to their homes, or entering into negotiations over two states — I don’t know.

But even if the United States doesn’t use its veto in that scenario, an interim order from the ICJ is likely to cause Israel serious problems. 

There is such a thing as an international legal “deep state.” Jurists and judges listen to what important courts say. And when the ICJ, also known as the World Court, makes its rulings, national courts in most of the Western world take note. Therefore, if the ICJ rules that there is a danger of genocide being committed, I can imagine a British citizen turning to a British court and demanding that the UK cease trading arms with Israel. Another implication is that such an ICJ ruling would likely force the ICC’s chief prosecutor [Karim Khan] to open an investigation of his own.

(...)

Within what time period is the Court’s decision expected?

There are no set rules, but in the Gambia v. Myanmar case, there was a decision within a month. It should be remembered that this [Gaza] case will continue after the hearing on the interim order. Israel will have to present evidence that will exonerate it from the claim that it is committing genocide, but in doing so could get into difficulties with the ICC. For example, it may explain that it bombed a certain place because it was pursuing a military objective, but it may thereby make admissions that create a basis for the claim that it used disproportionate force."

...

[palestinegenocide]

Amnesty International says Israel “failed to comply with ICJ ruling”

More than 50 states and organizations have presented their testimony at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which concluded its hearings on Monday, discussing the illegality of Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) said on Monday that “a just, lasting and comprehensive peace based on a two-state solution in Palestine is the only way to ensure security and stability of all people in the region and protect them from the cycle of violence.”

ICJ is expected to issue a non-binding legal opinion by the judges on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands captured in June 1967, sometime this summer.

Israel has shunned sending a representative to the Hague, instead filing a five-page written statement, saying that the ICJ’s case “aimed at harming Israel’s rights to defend itself from existential threats.”

On Monday, it submitted a report to the ICJ detailing steps it is taking to comply with a court order in January, to prevent genocidal actions in Gaza. Since then, Israel killed nearly 3,000 Palestinians.

Amnesty International said that Israel “failed to take even the bare minimum steps to comply” with the ICJ ruling.

Heba Morayef, the Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International, said that “not only has Israel created one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world, but it is also displaying a callous indifference to the fate of Gaza’s population by creating conditions which the ICJ has said places them at imminent risk of genocide.”

[tieflingkisser]

International Court of Justice Finds That BDS Is Not Just Legal, But Obligatory

The ICJ’s ruling found that states have a duty to bring Israeli occupation, colonization and apartheid to an end.

Israel and its lobby have, for years now, been engaged in a frenzy of activity to further insulate Israel from accountability by using their influence in the West to effectively outlaw organized opposition to Israel. Foremost among these efforts has been the Israeli campaign to penalize calls to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel for its gross violations of human rights. As a result, countless laws and policies are now on the books across the U.S. and the broader West, trampling on core constitutional principles and internationally guaranteed human rights in defense of Israeli impunity. But an advisory opinion issued last month by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should help to turn that around. In its historic ruling, the ICJ found that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza is entirely unlawful, that Israel practices apartheid and racial segregation, and that all states are under a duty to help bring this to an end, including by cutting off all economic, trade and investment relations with Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In other words, as a matter of international law, all countries are obliged to participate in an economic boycott of Israel’s activities in the occupied Palestinian territory and to divest from any existing economic relations there.

[...]

Recognizing this, Israel, as well as its Western allies accused of complicity in Israel’s international crimes (chief among them, the U.S., UK, and Germany) have been scrambling to oppose, delay, and obstruct action by these courts, both by intervening in court proceedings and, in some cases, by threatening court officials. And indeed, the ICC warrant process has already been inordinately delayed when compared to previous cases. Nevertheless, for its part, the ICJ advisory opinion was both timely and uncompromising in its application of international law to Israel. Israel and its allies also defensively claim that advisory opinions of the ICJ are “non-binding” and, indeed, the court cannot compel a state to comply with its findings. But what this tactic ignores is that the laws to which the court refers in its authoritative opinion are, in fact, binding on all states. For example, the court observed that the right of the Palestinians to self-determination, their rights under international human rights and humanitarian law, and the prohibition of Israel’s acquisition of territory by force impose so-called “erga omnes” obligations, that is, binding obligations that apply to all countries. Among these obligations are the duty not to recognize or assist the occupation in any way, and the duty to take action to realize the equal rights and self-determination of the Palestinian people. It follows that any policies or acts by a Western country that in any way recognize Israel’s occupation, assist Israel in that occupation (economically, militarily, diplomatically, etc.), or prohibit persons under its jurisdiction from respecting international law by boycotting or divesting from Israel’s illegal occupation, would be unlawful.

[triggerblaze345]

TikTok of an Al Jazeera reporter explaining the ICJ Gaza Genocide case.

“The UN’s top court has given a ruling on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. The court says Israel must take measures to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza.

But it didn’t order an immediate ceasefire. That’s what South Africa wanted. They brought this case. Israel wanted the case thrown out entirely and the judges rejected that.

Let’s break it all down.

This is all happening at the ICJ at the Hague. It’s the main court in the UN system. It gets involved whenever there is a dispute between UN member states. Like when countries are accused of breaking international treaties. And the treaty we’re talking about here is the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Also don’t confuse the ICJ with the ICC. That’s a different court that deals with individuals. So South Africa alleges that Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide, according to the definition in that convention.

Now this most recent ruling, and this is super important, is not a final decision on that case. This was about responding to South Africa’s request for emergency measures to stop the suffering in Gaza, while the court considers the main genocide case. Something that’ll take years.

So the the judges have ordered Israel to do six things. Tap and hold this video if you want to read them all.”

An image appears with a list of the six orders from ICJ

Prevent acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Ensure its military does not commit acts of genocide.

Prevent and punish any incitement to commit genocide.

Ensure the provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance in Gaza.

Preserve any evidence relating to allegations of genocide.

Report back to the court within in one month on what it’s doing to comply with those orders

“The main takeaway is that Israel needs to prevent the killing of Palestinians in Gaza and allow more aid in. This ruling is legally binding. But the court itself has no way of actually forcing Israel to comply.

So we’re left with a couple of big questions. First, will the ruling do anything to change Israel’s approach and make a difference to the people in Gaza?

Well, Israel’s prime minister has called the change of genocide outrageous and says the war will continue until Hamas is defeated and all the hostages are released.

And that leads to a second question. How might other countries pressure Israel to comply? Whether that’s through the UN Security Council or in conversations with the Israeli government. People are especially watching what the US, Israel’s main ally, might do.

The US has already vetoed three UN resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. So it comes to another vote, would the US also veto a resolution that tries to enforce the ICJ’s orders? Like on the issue of aid for example?”

Video cuts to a clip of White House correspondent Patty Cullhane who is talking

“Says Israel needs to let more aid into Gaza. The exact same thing that the Biden administration has been asking for. So if this comes to a Security Council decision, cause as we know the ICJ doesn’t have any enforcement powers, if someone brings it up to the UN Security Council, is the US going to be able to veto exactly what they’ve been calling for Israel to do?”

End of video

[adropofhumanity]

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that Israel's settlement policies and exploitation of natural resources in the occupied Palestinian territories violate international law. The court has determined that Israel's legislations and measures enacted in the occupied Palestinian territories constitute segregation and apartheid, in breach of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The comments came during the ICJ's advisory opinion on Friday regarding the legal consequences of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories since 1967.

While the opinion will not be binding, it could increase diplomatic pressure on Israel.

[notwiselybuttoowell]

Climate justice campaigners have condemned the US after the world’s largest historic greenhouse gas emitter argued against countries being legally obliged to combat the climate crisis.

The US intervention came on Wednesday as part of the historic climate hearing at the international court of justice (ICJ) in The Hague, where island nations and other climate-vulnerable countries are calling for wealthy polluting nations most responsible for climate breakdown to be held legally responsible.

Climate disasters are wreaking havoc across the planet, with dwindling hope of the current climate pledges curtailing global temperatures as the US and other fossil fuel nations continue to expand production.

Yet according to the US, the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) and 2015 Paris agreement and other existing non-binding treaties should be preserved and are the best way forward.

The current UN climate change regime “embodies the clearest, most specific, and the most current expression of states’ consent to be bound by international law in respect of climate change”, Margaret Taylor, legal adviser at the state department, told the ICJ judges on Wednesday.

“Any other legal obligations relating to climate change mitigation identified by the court should be interpreted consistently with the obligations states have under this treaty regime,” added Taylor.

Climate justice activists responded with fury.

“Once again, we witness a disheartening attempt by the US to evade its responsibilities as one of the world’s largest polluters,” said Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change. “The US is content with its business-as-usual approach and has taken every possible measure to shirk its historical responsibility, disregard human rights and reject climate justice.”

Ashfaq Khalfan, Oxfam America’s climate justice director, said: “It is absurd for the Biden administration to argue before the ICJ that countries do not have clear legal obligations to reduce carbon pollution, especially as it prepares to turn over the executive office to a proven climate denier like president-elect Trump, whose policies are likely to deeply harm US climate action.”

Australia, China and Saudi Arabia – major fossil fuel economies and among the world’s worst greenhouse gas emitters – also argued against legal accountability that developing nations are pushing for.

After years of campaigning by vulnerable nations and the global climate justice movement, the UN asked the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion on what obligations states have to tackle climate change and what the legal consequences could be if they fail to do so. More than 100 countries and organisations are testifying over the course of two weeks, and many hope the hearings will elevate science to the forefront, ensuring international law reflects the realities of climate breakdown and the urgent need for transformative action.

ICJ advisory opinions are non-binding but carry significant legal and political weight, and this will likely be referred to as an authoritative document in future climate litigation and during international climate negotiations.

Taylor also appeared to dismiss the idea that the ICJ should propose in its opinion that historic emitters be held responsible for past pollution. “An advisory proceeding is not the means to litigate whether individual states or groups of states have violated obligations pertaining to climate change in the past or bear responsibility for reparations ... nor would it be appropriate to do so,” she said.

The ICJ is one of three international courts tasked with producing an advisory opinion on the climate crisis, alongside the international tribunal for the law of the sea (Itlos) and the inter-American court of human rights. Itlos found earlier this year that greenhouse gases are pollutants which states have a legal responsibility to control – that goes beyond the UNFCCC. The inter-American court held hearings in Barbados and Brazil this year and is expected to be the next to publish its opinion. The ICJ ruling will likely take many months.

[kitonmitons]

Israel Not Complying with World Court Order in Genocide Case

Written by Human Rights Watch, published 26 February 2024

The Israeli government has failed to comply with at least one measure in the legally binding order from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in South Africa’s genocide case, Human Rights Watch said today. Citing warnings about “catastrophic conditions” in Gaza, the court ordered Israel on January 26, 2024, to “take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian aid,” and to report back on its compliance to the specific measures “within one month.”

One month later, however, Israel continues to obstruct the provision of basic services and the entry and distribution within Gaza of fuel and lifesaving aid, acts of collective punishment that amount to war crimes and include the use of starvation of civilians as a weapon of war. Fewer trucks have entered Gaza and fewer aid missions have been permitted to reach northern Gaza in the several weeks since the ruling than in the weeks preceding it, according to United Nations Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

“The Israeli government is starving Gaza’s 2.3 million Palestinians, putting them in even more peril than before the World Court’s binding order,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch. “The Israeli government has simply ignored the court’s ruling, and in some ways even intensified its repression, including further blocking lifesaving aid.”

Other countries should use all forms of leverage, including sanctions and embargoes, to press the Israeli government to comply with the court’s binding orders in the genocide case, Human Rights Watch said.

… The daily average number of trucks entering Gaza with food, aid, and medicine dropped by more than a third in the weeks following the ICJ ruling: 93 trucks between January 27 and February 21, 2024, compared to 147 trucks between January 1 and 26, and only 57 between February 9 and 21.

By comparison, an average of 500 trucks of food and goods entered Gaza each day before the escalation in hostilities in October, during which time 1.2 million people in Gaza were estimated to be facing acute food insecurity, and 80 percent of Gaza’s population were reliant on humanitarian aid amid Israel's more than 16-year-long unlawful closure.

“Israel’s ground forces are able to reach all parts of Gaza, so Israeli authorities clearly have the capacity to ensure that aid reaches all of Gaza,” Shakir said.

Read more here at link above ⬆️

[crazy-pages]

The United Nations' highest court has found Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories are illegal and all states should cooperate to bring an end to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, in an advisory opinion issued on Friday. The findings by judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), known as the World Court, are not binding but carry weight under international law and may weaken support for Israel. "Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the regime associated with them, have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law," President Nawaf Salam said, reading the findings of a 15-judge panel. The opinion said Israel should pay reparations to Palestinians for damages caused by the occupation.  It also found the UN Security Council, the General Assembly and all states have an obligation not to recognise the occupation as legal and not to give aid or support toward maintaining it.

[sayruq]

Israeli officials anticipate that the International Court of Justice in The Hague will issue orders on Friday to halt the ongoing military conflict with Palestinian militants in Gaza, according to a senior diplomatic source. An Israeli diplomatic source told Israel Hayom that legal experts assessed there was a high probability the court would rule to issue injunctions following a petition filed by South Africa against Israel’s military actions. The two potential scenarios, the source said, were that the court could order a cessation of Israeli operations in the city of Rafah in southern Gaza, or further, that it could seek to halt the broader war in Gaza entirely through court injunctions. Orders to halt the war represent the most severe scenario from Israel’s perspective, as they could significantly impede Israel’s ability to continue its military mission in Gaza. This despite Israel repeatedly emphasizing it is not bound by the court’s rulings. Another significant concern is that injunctions from The Hague could precipitate a similar resolution by the U.N. Security Council, where Israel would again require the United States to veto it.

[thegalievthought]

The Question of Venezuelan Social-Imperialism

Are Venezuela's threats against Guyana Social-Imperialism? Lenin used Social-Imperialism ok in simple terms of a nation that is Socialist in deeds or name (for example the ruling party of Venezuela is ostensibly socialist in character at least historically) however in deeds In either policy as a rule or in a particular action do imperialist deeds.

But what does this mean? And how is it important to Venezuela's confrontation against the Socialist nation of Guyana? Well, let's start with why Venezuela wants the region. Well, the dispute comes from firstly imperial sources, this dispute predates an independent Guyana and is namely a dispute between Venezuela and the United Kingdom. In 1899 the British Empire which at the time controlled Guyana as a puppet awarded “the entire mouth of the Orinoco River and the land on either side to Venezuela; it granted to the United Kingdom the land to the east extending to the Essequibo River.” When Guyana gained independence in 1966 all countries involved Except the signed the Geneva Agreement which said that all parties should come to a peaceful, practical and satisfactory decision on the status of the Essequibo. Which never happened. However, the treaty said if a stalemate happened then a relevant international organ Could step in as a mediator which happened in 2020 when the ICJ took the case. Guyana filed the case with the ICJ and the majority of judges agreed the court has jurisdiction to take the case further with Guyanana. First, the ICJ needed to have a case to decide if this was in the ICJ's jurisdiction. And if so, what timeline did it have jurisdiction over. in that case for the first ruling it was ruled 12 to 4 that the ICJ had jurisdiction based on the 1966 Geneva agreement that it has the authority to arbitrate over the award given in 1899, “that it has jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by the Co-operative Republic of Guyana on 29 March 2018 in so far as it concerns the validity of the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 and the related question of the definitive settlement of the land boundary dispute between the Co-operative Republic of Guyana and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela;” However there was a judge who disagreed notably with four Judge Gevorgian, Which for the sake of accuracy here is the entire dissenting opinion.

“Dissenting opinion of Judge Gevorgian Judge Gevorgian disagrees with the Court’s conclusion that it has jurisdiction to entertain Guyana’s claims. In his view, the Court’s Judgment undermines parties to the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court has made the unprecedented decision to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of a treaty that does not even mention the Court and contains no clause referring disputes to it. This is especially problematic as one of the Parties has consistently refused to submit the present dispute to the Court, and the dispute concerns national interests of the highest order, such as territorial sovereignty. In particular, Judge Gevorgian considers that Article IV (2) of the Geneva Agreement does not empower the Secretary-General of the United Nations to issue a legally binding decision as to the means of settlement to be employed by the Parties. The contrary conclusion reached by the Court is not supported by the text of the Geneva Agreement or by the Agreement’s object and Purpose. In Judge Gevorgian’s view, the object and purpose of the Geneva Agreement is to help the Parties reach an agreed settlement to their dispute. As such, the Secretary-General has a non-binding role similar to that of a conciliator or mediator, entrusted with facilitating the Parties’ attempts to reach an agreed solution, but not empowered to impose a means of settlement on them.”

End opinion.

For the second case, the court however was unanimous in its decision that “that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana arising from events that occurred after the signature of the Geneva Agreement.” Meaning for things such as an invasion voted on by the Venezuelan parliament to annex the disputed territories it had no jurisdiction to arbitrate or to arbitrate any deals made after the 1966 Geneva Agreement.

Anyway, now Venezuela is considering military action against another socialist in-character state, And one at that with one of the largest indigenous populations on the continent because of imperial agreements made by Europeans who didn't own the land (rightfully) then and definitely not now. So that begs the question of whether Venezuela is threatening action against another sovereign socialist state (that is I should note backed by the US and NATO) Over an imperialist agreement Social Imperialism? In my opinion, yes. Ignoring the fact that Venezuela, despite its socialist character is still a settler colonial state, its aggression against Guyana is Certainly social imperialism despite the submission Guyana has shown to the US (ostensibly because of the colonial past of the nation and submission being 'voluntary'.

However especially now as Brazil another 'socialist' in character nation moves to confront Venezuela and make a regional war we must understand and condemn Venezuelan Social Imperialism and stand with Guyanana and yes recognise that if the US intervenes on behalf of Guyana that is Imperialism and needs to be similarly combatted social imperialism is not justified against other socialist in character states without a justified cause or reason such as Vietnam's intervention in Cambodia. Venezuela does not have that Justification. And I must firmly say that to the International working class and anti-imperialist movements worldwide particularly those in the occupied Palestine, Yemen, and Lebanon to stand with Guyana as Venezuela moves to occupy what is at this point land owned by a majority indigenous nation in the Americas this is by all rights no matter what any European agreements were made, whatever colonization took place. Guyana's land furthermore the entirety of the Americas (occupied Turtle Island) belongs to those indigenous people and not settlers or mixed indigenous people who act in part as settlers. Ostensibly we must support Guyana against social-imperialism not only because of Imperialism's barbaric nature but also because of the hundreds of years of history of this very colonialism and imperialism being wrought on the indigenous people and their right to the land being verily ignored like that of the ignored right to Palestinians to their land. Moreover, this is not just an anti-imperialist struggle, it also needs to be the start of a larger struggle for decolonisation which never happened in the occupied Americas.

[farida-mourad]

South Africa wins ICJ Case against Israel

The International Court of Justice has ruled in favor of South Africa, imposing legally binding provisional measures on Israel. After considering evidence, the court has ordered Israel to:

1. Prevent any acts of genocide in Gaza.

2. Ensure its military refrains from committing genocide.

3. Punish any public calls for genocide.

4. Address harmful living conditions in Gaza.

5. Preserve evidence related to the Genocide Convention.

6. Report back to the court within a month on actions taken.

7. Court demand both sides release of all hostages.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

BY

EUGENE KONTOROVICH

Moreover, Berman confuses opinion for authority in international law. International law is not some kind of geopolitical version of reality shows like Survivor. If it were a popularity contest, Israel, and the U.S. for the matter, would have been voted off the island a long time ago. Recall that in 1975, the U.N. voted for a resolution saying the entire idea of a Jewish state is illegal. Fortunately, international law can only be authoritatively interpreted by duly authorized entities, and nothing in the U.N. Charter makes it a decider of international law.

Similarly, Berman also cites the International Court of Justice, referring presumably to its Advisory Opinion in the Wall case of 2004. But that decision was explicitly not legally binding. It has no more authority than a ruling on the meaning of Romanian law by a U.S. court. It is only entitled to deference based on the quality of its analysis, of which it had none, but rather relied on citing U.N. resolutions that had said the same thing, all solely in the context of Israel. Indeed, the other supposed authorities Berman cites, such as the ICC and ECJ, all merely reiterate the political positions of U.N. resolutions, notorious for their obsessive focus on Israel. They do not even address the primary arguments for the legality of settlements, but rather engage in an endless cycle of circular citation. It is turtles all the way down.

Turning to actual sources of law, Berman cites Art. 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, a treaty that applies to situations of wartime occupation. But he completely skips most of the argument for the legality of Israeli settlements, which is that the territory was not in fact occupied in the legal sense by Israel, making Art. 49(6) irrelevant. The arguments for lack of occupation focus on the lack of Jordanian sovereignty over the territory. The Cession of Vessels and Tugs for Navigation on the Danube case held that territory that was not under the sovereignty of any state could not become occupied. That means that the West Bank, which was not under Jordanian sovereignty, could not be deemed occupied. Danube Navigation was decided before 1967, and would thus reflect the law as it was when Israel took control of the territories, unlike the ICJ and other cases cited by Berman, which were decided decades later.

Moreover one cannot occupy one’s own territory: If Ukraine retakes Crimea from Russia, it will not be an occupation just because it had long been administered by Moscow. As professor Avi Bell and I have demonstrated at great length, under general rules of international law applicable around the world, Israel would have a sovereign claim to the West Bank from 1948 (not so for the Golan Heights). That is because newly created states inherit the borders of the prior administrative units in the territory, in this case, Mandatory Palestine. Berman mocks reliance on mandatory borders, but the very existence of Jordan, as well as most of the borders of the Middle East, are based fully on mandatory borders. There is nothing lawlike about a unique rule of borders just for the Jewish state.

Finally and alternatively, even if an occupation arose in 1967, the 1994 peace treaty would end any state of occupation, as emphasized in a memorandum written in 1977 by the State Department legal adviser under Jimmy Carter.