In view of #TheGambia case versus #Myanmar at the #ICJ alleging genocide against the #Rohingya, there may be calls for other states to file their own cases or to intervene under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute. A few thoughts here about why I'm skeptical about such proposals. 1/5
For example, this piece by @PhelimKine urges other states to file their own #ICJ cases ‘to create a critical mass of international opprobrium’ targeting #Myanmar. The underlying idea is well-intentioned, but I think it is unnecessary and risks being counter-productive. 2/5
Additional cases or interveners will slow down and complicate the proceedings. It could lead to competing legal strategies that undermine each other. And, ultimately, I don’t think having multiple states involved will influence the ICJ’s conclusions one way or another. 3/5
States can still contribute by expressing support for the case, or as @PhelimKine writes, by enforcing sanctions. More concretely, if states have intelligence that would support the legal case, they should share it. This would be more productive than joining the litigation. 4/5
There may be a few limited situations in which non-party intervention under Art 62 is warranted here, but not to express support or solidarity. Rather, a few states in the immediate region may have an interest of a legal nature that is likely to be affected by the judgment. -end-
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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
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.
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.
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
Two points about #SouthAfrica’s new #ICJ case against #Israel alleging violations of the #GenocideConvention re #Gaza. First, it's important to recall that at the provisional measures phase, the #ICJ does *not* need to determine whether Israel has committed acts of genocide. 1/7
Instead, the #ICJ will consider (i) whether acts complained of by South Africa are capable of falling within provisions of the #GenocideConvention, and (ii) whether Palestinians in Gaza face a real and imminent risk of genocide going forward (& while the case is pending). 2/7
The #ICJ explained this in its provisional measures order in #TheGambia v #Myanmar. So even for those who believe it will be impossible to prove genocidal intent on the merits, this is not an obstacle to the ICJ finding that the requirements for provisional measures are met. 3/7
A few initial observations about the #ICJ's order today indicating provisional measures in #Ukraine v #Russia. The bottom line is that the Court has ordered Russia to suspend immediately, without qualification, the military operation against Ukraine begun on 24 February. 1/19
As expected, the #ICJ found a dispute was established prior to seisin of the Court based on Russia’s conduct since 2014, incl criminal proceedings brought by Russia against Ukrainian officials for alleged acts in violation of the Genocide Convention. 2/19
That history put more recent assertions by both parties in context, including President Putin’s justification for the military operation commenced on 24 February. In general, I think it is positive to see the Court not taking an overly formalistic approach here. 3/19