1. Take some time to read about the shocking and disappointing events at @UTLaw. A hiring committee unanimously chose @ValentinaAzarov over nearly 10 others to run the school’s justly-celebrated international human rights program. thestar.com/news/gta/2020/…
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov 2. Then a sitting judge and alumnus expressed “concern” about Azarova’s work — of course — on behalf of Palestinians. Soon enough, the Dean of the law school, over the objections of the hiring committee, Edward Iacobucci, rescinded Azarova’s offer.
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov 3. A number of international-law scholars wrote to the President of @UofT to register their concern. I was one of them, as I've worked closely with Azarova on Saudi arms transfer issues, know her Palestine advocacy well, and think the world of her. She is scrupulously fair.
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov@UofT 4. As the article reports, @UofT claims it never made Azarova an offer, so it did not rescind one. This is what is known as a “lie.” They most certainly made her an offer. And she accepted it. It’s shocking the university would claim otherwise and will blow up in their face.
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov@UofT 5. Even worse, @UofT’s idiotic statement inadvertantly admits it isn’t telling the truth. The “cross-border” “legal and technical” constraints mentioned in the statementconcerned the need for Azarova to arrange her work permit!
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov@UofT 6. The entire advisory board of the human-rights program has resigned in protest — and rightly so. The search has now been cancelled. If the university doesn’t change course and hire Azarova, it will be catastrophic for the program and for the law school.
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov@UofT 7. That would be a genuine shame, because @UTLaw is a fantastic school with some of the world’s best international lawyers. Fingers crossed the powers-that-be end up doing the right thing. thestar.com/news/gta/2020/…
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov@UofT 8. PS: this is what real #cancelculture looks like. The left gets a few lectures by noxious right-wingers called off (which is wrong!). The right systematically attempts to destroy the career of anyone who has the temerity to criticise #Israel.
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov@UofT 9. The Dean of @UTLaw has sent an email to faculty repeating that no offer was made and that there was no political motivation behind the discontinuation of the search. The first claim is categorically false. The second is impossible to credit.
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov@UofT 10. The Assistant Dean of the law school offered @ValentinaAzarov the position via Zoom on August 11. The offer included a detailed list of the offer’s terms, including salary, benefits, and pension contribution.
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov@UofT 11. Azarova accepted the offer, including its terms, via Zoom with the Assistant Dean on August 19. She and the Assistant Dean then had three additional Zoom calls and a WhatsApp discussion to plan the immigration process.
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov@UofT 12. Two past directors of @UTLaw’s international human-rights program have categorically rejected Dean Iacobucci’s claim that no offer was made. They both say the offer was made and accepted.
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov@UofT 13. The Assistant Dean of @UTLaw personally told the chair of the human-rights program’s advisory board, who was also on the hiring committee, that a sitting judge had contacted a senior fundraising official to express concern about Azarova’s appointment.
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov@UofT 14. Later, the Dean of @UTLaw, Iacobucci, admitted to the chair of the advisory board that the judge had contacted him personally.
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov@UofT 15. On Sept. 14, the entire @UTLaw faculty received an email from a Vienna-based lawyer falsely accusing the chair of the advisory board of supporting a complete boycott of Israel. Very odd timing.
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov@UofT 16. Iacobucci’s claim his decision was not politically motivated is simply not credible. He admits talking to the judge — a serious and perhaps unlawful breach of confidentiality. He has never specifically denied the judge’s opposition was based on Azarova’s Palestinian advocacy.
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov@UofT 17. Iacobucci must immediately release the judge’s name and provided a detailed account of everything they discussed. As it is, he sounds like the legislator who is wined and dined by a lobbyist, supports the lobbyist’s bill the next day, and then angrily denies undue influence.
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov@UofT 18. As for the position, it should immediately be offered to Azarova. And if it isn’t, faculty should either refuse to serve on the next hiring committee or simply offer her the position again after the next search.
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov@UofT 19. Other candidates, particularly serious ones, should refuse to apply for the position if it is re-advertised. Their appointment would be forever tainted by the manifest unfairness of denying the position to the best candidate because of her (honourable) Palestinian advocacy.
@UTLaw@ValentinaAzarov@UofT 20. PS: here is an email from the Assistant Dean that makes clear there was an offer and that everything was moving forward on the immigration front.
Breaking: the Pre-Trial Chamber has just issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant in the #Palestine situation.
In reaching that conclusion, the PTC unanimously rejected Israel's jurisdictional challenges under Articles 18 and 19 of the Rome Statute.
"[T]he Chamber considered that pursuant to article 19(1) of the Statute, States are not entitled to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction under article 19(2) prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Thus Israel’s challenge is premature."
The OTP's response to Israel's jurisdictional challenge in the #Palestine situation is now publicly available. The response was filed well before the deadline -- illustrating the importance of the arrest warrants being issued as soon as possible. icc-cpi.int/sites/default/…
2. There is very little new in Israel's challenge; nearly all of its arguments were already made by various states and organisations during the amicus process, which Israel could have participated in -- but chose not to.
3. The basic response is simple: Israel's challenge is premature, because states do not have the right to invoke Art. 19 before an arrest warrant has been issued. Multiple PTCs -- in the 19(3) litigation and in the Venezuela situation -- have held that Art. 19 requires a case.
For those wondering: although I have not seen the briefs, I assume that Israel is taking its one opportunity under Art. 19(2)(b) to challenge jurisdiction and admissibility. Suspects cannot make such challenges prior to the issuance of an arrest warrant -- Art. 19(2)(a).
That is not (necessarily) the case for states. Art. 19(5) requires them to challenge jurisdiction and admissibility "at the earliest opportunity." There is very little jurisprudence at the #ICC concerning Art. 19(5).
Here is what Nsereko & Ventura say about the timing issue in their entry on Art. 19 in the Ambos & Triffterer Commentary on the Rome Statute.
The two suspects are very high-ranking. At the time of the alleged crimes, Shoigu was Russia's Minister of Defence and Gerasimov was Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces and First Deputy Minister of Defence.
The PTC has concluded "that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the two suspects bear responsibility for missile strikes carried out by the Russian armed forces against the Ukrainian electric infrastructure from at least 10 October 2022 until at least 9 March 2023."
All domestic efforts at accountability are welcome. But as @eliavl and @AccJurist have pointed out, the creation of a national commission of inquiry will have no effect on whether the Pre-Trial Chamber grants the Prosecutor's application for arrest warrants. 🧵
Issuance of warrants is governed by RS Art. 58, which requires the PTC to issue a warrant if: (1) "There are reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court"; and (2) the suspect will not voluntarily appear.
That's it. Art. 58 makes no mention of complementarity -- nor does it mention jurisdiction or admissibility more broadly. Those issues arise only once the PTC has issued an arrest warrant for a suspect because Art. 58 has been satisfied.
The complementarity section of this post by @yuvalshany1 and @amichaic is wrong, for reasons I explained in my post @opiniojuris. If #Israel actively investigates the two suspects for substantially the same conduct at the OTP, it can challenge admissibility under Art. 19.
It doesn't matter how many #IDF soldiers #Israel is investigating. It doesn't matter that war makes it difficult to investigate senior leaders. It doesn't matter civil society has brought litigation re: starvation. It doesn't matter Israel prefers commissions to prosecutions.
It also doesn't matter that the authors (wrongly) think #Israel was somehow cheated out of its Art. 18 challenge by having the same rule applied to it that the ICC has applied to every other similarly situated state. (Afghanistan had no trouble invoking Art. 18.)