Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Mike Becker Profile picture
@mabecker17
Nov 13, 2019 • 5 tweets • 3 min read • Read on X
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
　

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

Mike Becker Profile picture
Sep 25
There’s a lot of buzz about announced plans by Australia, Canada, Germany & Netherlands to jointly sue #Afghanistan at the International Court of Justice (@CIJ_ICJ) for alleged violations of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Woman (#CEDAW).
As far as I know, this would mark only the second time that a state has sought to base ICJ jurisdiction on CEDAW art 29. But the @guardian piece about the announcement appears to be a bit mixed up about how this will work. theguardian.com/world/2024/sep…
CEDAW art 29 requires the state bringing a case about a CEDAW dispute to first attempt to settle the dispute by negotiation. If negotiations fail, that state must request ad hoc arbitration (not by the ICJ). This triggers the six-month period referred to in the article.
Read 9 tweets
Mike Becker Profile picture
May 16
This @BBCNews piece addresses recent confusion about the term ‘plausibility’ in ICJ decisions: . It mostly gets this right; the ICJ refers formally to plausibility of 'rights’ rather than ‘claims’. But there is some lingering confusion here. 1/8bbc.com/news/articles/…
The article discusses a debate within the UK about whether the ICJ's January order—in which the ICJ found the rights at issue to be plausible AND a real & imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to those rights—meant it was incorrect to refer to a ‘plausible risk of genocide’. 2/8
The article describes this as a debate about whether the ICJ ‘was convinced there was a risk of that happening’. But is THAT really what the debate was about? The January order made it very clear that the ICJ saw a real risk of Genocide Convention violations *going forward*. 3/8
Read 8 tweets
Mike Becker Profile picture
May 10
South Africa returns to the #ICJ once again seeking urgent provisional measures against #Israel. The request asks the ICJ to order Israel to immediately withdraw and cease the offensive in Rafah and relinquish control of the Rafah & Kerem Shalom crossings to allow in aid. 1/14
Very strong language: SA describes the #Rafah assault as ‘killing the Palestinian people of Gaza, while Israel is simultaneously starving them, and deliberately denying them humanitarian aid and the basic necessities of life’ (¶19). 2/14
The focus of the request is on how new facts (namely the Rafah assault & shutting down humanitarian aid entry points) amounts to a new urgent risk of irreparable prejudice harm to the rights at issue in the case. 3/14
Read 14 tweets
Mike Becker Profile picture
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
Mike Becker Profile picture
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
Mike Becker Profile picture
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

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!

Send Email!

:(