"The ICC is a basic achievement of the international community that Germany always supported. Germany respects its independence and its procedures as those of other international courts. /2
Part of that is that that the pretrial chamber now has to decide on the applications of the chief prosecutor. /3
The Court will have to tackle a number of difficult questions, including the question of jurisdiction and complementarity for investigations in states respecting the rule of law like Israel. /4
The simultaneous application of warrants against Hamas leaders and Israeli office holders created the erroneous impression of equality. But the Court will have to judge on very different facts, which the Chief Prosecutor presented at length. /5
End of quote. (Statement continues) Basically Germany managed to support the ICC, acknowledge that the CP presented the facts at length, no criticism of that, only criticism of an "impression" that is erroneous because the application contains both sides. /6
Actually, let me also translate the very last para: "Israel's government has the right and obligation to protect its population. It is clear that in this defense humanitarian law applies with all its obligations."
This is a statement that really really is a tightrope act.
It manages to a) endorse ICC b) not explicitly criticize the CP c) not explicitly criticize Israel's government. The only explicit criticism is that the impression of equivalence could arise, which is erroneous.
But while some of the contradiction is put off onto the pretrial chamber, at least from this statement, when push comes to shove, the ICC seems to win. And the position would be: we support Israel and its right to self-defense, but cannot endorse international crimes.
@MarinaTrusch quite rightly criticized I did not translate the whole thing, so here's the final para (I did not translate because it did not refer to the Court): /1
Hamas' leadership is responsible for a barbaric massacre, during which men, women and children in Israel were assassinated, raped and abducted in a targeted and most brutal manner. Hamas continues to hold israeli hostages under unspeakable conditions as hostages, ...
... continues to attack Israel with rockets and abuse civilians in Gaza as human shields.
BTW - did they really not do an official translation? The website does not lead me there.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I know some will brush off @RishiSunak 's comments on the ECtHR and the ECHR as irrelevant given that his days in office are almost over. They are not. They are dangerous for the UK and show some politicians have not learned a thing. Why? /1
First: Once again a UK leader makes a commitment to leave an international system to limit immigration without any regard to the impact of leaving. That impact? /2
The UK was instrumental in drafting the ECHR. The agreement is at the core of the Council of Europe, underlies the good Friday agreement and the TCA. Leaving it means the UK leaves the CoE, destroys the Belfast Agreement and ultimately terminates significant chunks of the TCA. /3
Sorry to emphasize this again, but please note the "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" aspect of the case, which weirdly is often left out of commentary on the ICJ case. It is incredibly important. /1
South Africa submitted numerous statements that show that a cavalier attitude has developed to say truly horrendous things. Now that does not equal showing a state policy of genocide. But it is deeply troubling. And the court decided to remind Israel of what needs to be done /2
And the order of the Court in this regard is all the more stronger by who voted for it: Also Israel's ad hoc judge Barak, the former President of Israel's Supreme Court. /3
Some thoughts on the South Africa-Israel case before the ICJ, as I am unhappy with some comments. I’ll try to keep this untechnical. /1
1) South Africa files the case as a state party to the genocide convention against Israel as another state party alleging violations of the convention. This is permissible, as every state party is held to have an interest in upholding the convention.
2) This is not the first time that this has happened. The Gambia has filed a case concerning genocide against Myanmar. If you are interested… icj-cij.org/case/178
Ofcom has published a list of swearwords by degree of offensiveness, which really is a f****** great service for non-native speakers. So here it is (thread)