Judge Tladi, a sitting judge at the ICC, just penned a Declaration to the Nicaragua v. Germany Provisional Measures Order that in my view directly contradicts how many are reading Judge Donoghue's BBC remarks
Judge Tladi says that for PMs to be granted, *the rights* need to be *plausible* (as Judge Donoghue said) but that this in turn means that there has to be "some prospect of success on the merits, i.e. (...) [that] *there is a case to be answered at the merits stage*".
In other words Judge Tladi agrees with what many of us in international law Twitter said in the aftermath of Judge Donoghue's interview, that saying that the rights are plausible implies that the case is plausible too.
Much is being said about former ICJ President Joan Donoghue's interview in @BBCHARDtalk, particularly her view that the ICJ "did not find a plausible case of genocide". A few thoughts 🧵
The first thing I thought, honestly, is what on Earth is Judge Donoghue doing in @BBCHARDtalk giving an interview?? At several points of the interview she has to excuse herself from answering questions because she is fully aware that her answer can unduly influence the case
At one point, she is asked what was the most important evidence the Court relied on to arrive at its decision (!!) and she says argues that the "most authortative" sources where statements from "senior Israeli officials"
I know I keep comparing the Columbia encampment to the 2022-23 protests in Peru, but it's just that it's such a deja vu for me. During the protests, social media also flooded with videos of these dangerous and scary "terrorists" who needed to be stopped violently🧵
In Peru we have a lot of experience with what we call "terruqueo". To "terruquear" is to falsely accuse someone of being a terrorist/terrorist sympathiser as a means to delegitimise them. You can read more about it in this excellent piece by @FelineFreier americasquarterly.org/article/terruq…
Terruqueo is often picked up by hegemonic media to paint entire groups as dangerous and violent, usually through use of isolated videos and news-stories that "confirm" the accusation in peoples' minds. Scary videos of scary-looking people = everyone is a terrorist
Having grown up in Peru, a society traumatised by the brutality of the Shining Path, the societal process @ori_goldberg describes is very familiar to me. Vulnerability/insecurity are powerful forces that trigger primal responses. Many just want to “kill them all”. Some thoughts🧵
This is a very famous video in Peru, taken in the aftermath of the 1992 Tarata bombing that killed 25 people and injured 250 (inc. friends of mine). A man standing outside the burning ruins of Tarata tower says “those SoBs need to be killed, exterminated”
I can say pretty confidently that this was (and to a large degree still is) the preponderant approach to the Shining Path in Peru. The motto is/was “human rights are for righteous humans” - and terrorists are not righteous (or human).
I don't think it's nonsense, but I do think it does not prove its point. If the argument is that Israel is protecting civilians, then the 2 central arguments made here would be insufficient under international humanitarian law. Some thoughts below🧵
The 2 main arguments made here are 1) that "90% of casualties in modern war are civilians", so Israel is "below average", and 2) that Israel actually takes "unprecedented steps" to prevent civilian casualties. Let's look at each through the prism of the applicable law
1) "90% civilian deaths"
I've explained before why this claim is misleading. It is based on a press release (SC/14904) of a UN Report (UN Doc. S/2022/381). Using this text to establish a sort of normal ratio for Gaza is not correct press.un.org/en/2022/sc1490…