Thread by @mabecker17

By a narrow margin, the #ICJ has indicated provisional measures in favour of #Qatar against #UAE. However, the Court's brief discussion of the procedural preconditions in #CERD art 22 strikes me as insufficient, even if merely to establish prima facie jurisdiction. 1/

In short, it is not clear to me how the #ICJ can conclude that negotiations b/w #Qatar and #UAE have been exhausted when there is an on-going procedure relating to the same subject-matter in front of the #CERD Committee (regardless of whether bilateral talks went nowhere). 2/

The Court notes (at para 39) that #Qatar is not relying on the CERD Committee proceedings to show that art 22 conditions are met, but this seems to miss the point. The pending CERD Committee action arguably *defeats* -- rather than *establishes* -- ICJ jurisdiction. 3/

The Court also suggests that the issue is whether art 22 preconditions are cumulative or alternative. This also misses the point. Even if they are alternative (my view), the CERD Committee proceedings, voluntarily begun by #Qatar, suggests negotiations have not been exhausted. 4/

Of course, it's possible the Court will revisit these jurisdictional issues at a later phase; it has established prima facie jurisdiction only to indicate PMs. But I'm surprised the art 22 issue was not given more attention here, and a reversal on jurisdiction is a bad look. end