Mike Becker Profile picture
Jun 12, 2018 10 tweets 6 min read Read on X
A few preliminary thoughts on the case filed by #Qatar against #UAE yesterday at the #ICJ, including Qatar's request for provisional measures. The lengthy application instituting proceedings is here: icj-cij.org/files/case-rel… 1/
Qatar alleges UAE has enacted various discriminatory measures aimed at Qataris since June 2017, including the collective expulsion of Qataris living in UAE. Qatar says the measures violate the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. 2/
Qatar & UAE are parties to the #CERD. Article 22 of the treaty provides for #ICJ jurisdiction if the matter is not settled by negotiation. This means Qatar must demonstrate that it's made a "genuine attempt" to settle the dispute & has taken negotiations "as far as possible". 3/
Among the four states leading the blockade/boycott against #Qatar (#UAE, #Egypt, #Bahrain, #SaudiArabia), only UAE did not take a reservation to Art 22 and withhold consent to ICJ jurisdiction. This is one explanation for the absence of parallel cases against other states. 4/
As for the negotiation precondition, #Qatar claims #UAE has not engaged meaningfully in a Kuwaiti-sponsored mediation effort and has ignored Qatar's more recent requests for direct talks. So it says the precondition is met. 5/
A question for litigation may be whether mediation and Qatar's public statements have touched directly enough on the subject-matter of the CERD to establish a dispute about UAE's obligations under the treaty and to satisfy the negotiation requirement. 6/
Assuming jurisdiction, it will be interesting to see how the #ICJ interprets #CERD Article 1(2), which says the treaty doesn't cover distinctions made between citizens and non-citizens. UAE will surely emphasize this, along with the counter-terrorism rationale for its actions. 7/
#Qatar will argue, on the other hand, that #CERD Art 1(2) has been interpreted to mean that differential treatment of non-citizens cannot go so far as to violate fundamental human rights and requires a “legitimate aim” (a vague standard that may end up helpful for #UAE). 8/
As for #Qatar's provisional measures request, it's possible the Court will manage to squeeze in a hearing before the end of July and its summer recess. The key to the request seems to be an allegation of continuing harm based on the ban on expelled Qataris re-entering #UAE. 9/
It's notable that #Qatar's provisional measure request seeks relief that largely mirrors what it seeks on the merits (minus a compensation claim). This seems like a tough road. If there is a basis to indicate provisional measures, I'd expect to see something far more limited. END

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mike Becker

Mike Becker Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mabecker17

Apr 26
Re Judge Donoghue's @BBCHARDtalk interview: I realize this won't satisfy many people, but there is a difference between saying (1) that the ICJ did not decide that claims of genocide are plausible (what she said) and (2) that the Court decided that such claims are NOT plausible.
The ICJ did NOT reject South Africa's genocide claims or declare than implausible (this is consistent with Judge Donoghue's remarks). One could instead think about this (i.e., plausibility of the *claim*) as a question the Court did not need to decide in granting interim relief.
What gets lost is that the ICJ found a real & imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the plausible rights of Palestinians in Gaza. This is forward looking. This can be reasonably construed as a finding that S. Africa established a plausible risk of genocide *going forward*.
Read 5 tweets
Apr 9
Having now had the chance to read the Day 2 transcript in #Nicaragua v #Germany, I think Nicaragua may come up empty at the #ICJ. Not because the law means that Nicaragua’s claims are fundamentally flawed or inadmissible, but because the facts, it appears, are on Germany’s side.
Germany’s argument on prima facie jurisdiction (plus Monetary Gold) was not wholly convincing. The key difference b/w claims based on existence of a serious risk of IHL violations/genocide versus claims requiring prior establishment of violations was too easily brushed aside.
That said, I would not discount Germany’s arguments about Nicaragua’s alleged failure to have established the existence of a dispute prior to bringing the case. This case may (unhelpfully?) demonstrate why the dispute requirement (which I strongly dislike) has some merit.
Read 7 tweets
Mar 28
In response to #SouthAfrica’s request of 6 March 2024 & the deteriorating situation in #Gaza, the #ICJ has modified the provisional measures that it indicated against #Israel on 26 January. Here are some key points and observations on the decision and the separate opinions.🧵1/20
What has the ICJ ordered Israel to do? By unanimous vote, the Court directed Israel to take all necessary and effective measures to ensure unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed aid and basic services, including by increasing the number of land crossing points. 2/20
By 15-1, the Court ordered Israel to ensure that its military does not commit acts which violate the rights of Palestinians in Gaza as a protected group under the Genocide Convention, including by preventing delivery of humanitarian aid. 3/20
Read 20 tweets
Jan 26
The #ICJ will issue its decision on #SouthAfrica’s request for provisional measures against #Israel starting at 1 pm today in The Hague. If you are watching the live feed at UN Web TV (), here are some key points to look out for. 🧵tinyurl.com/5n6m94px
Preliminary point: The ICJ will not make any determination today about whether Israel’s actions in #Gaza amount to genocide. This is a question for the merits phase. This decision is about protecting the rights at issue while the case is pending.
First, has SA met the threshold test for the ICJ to issue provisional measures (PMs)? Points of interest: 1. Has South Africa established that a bilateral dispute about the Genocide Convention existed between it and Israel prior to filing the case? This goes to jurisdiction.
Read 11 tweets
Jan 11
From a legal perspective, this part of Vaughan Lowe's intervention on behalf of South Africa is absolutely essential to anticipating and addressing the core of the arguments we can expect to see from Israel tomorrow.
Making important points here about why South Africa cannot ask the ICJ to direct PMs at Hamas, and highlighting the fact that Israel's claim that it does everything it can to abide by IHL & spare civilians is undermined by Israel's actual actions, which tell a different story.
Lowe also makes the argument that the only way to ensure the necessary humanitarian response is a complete suspension of military operations that have the potential to violate the Genocide Convention.
Read 5 tweets
Dec 30, 2023
The best way to answer this is by looking at the PMs that South Africa has requested (para 144 of the request). In many respects, these requests track the PMs requested in the case against #Myanmar. In that case, the #ICJ granted some of the requested PMs but rejected others. 1/9
SA seeks PMs directing Israel: to suspend military ops in #Gaza (1, 2, 3); abide by its obligations under the #GenocideConvention (4, 6); and prevent expulsion/forced displacement, deprivation of food/water/humanitarian aid, and ‘destruction of Palestinian life’ in Gaza (5). 2/9
SA also asks the ICJ to direct Israel: to prevent destruction of evidence, including by not denying access to fact-finding missions (7); to submit periodic reports on measures taken to implement the PMs (8); and to refrain from acts which might aggravate the dispute (9). 3/9
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(