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
Adil Haque Profile picture
Adil Haque
@AdHaque110
Professor, @RutgersLaw. Executive Editor, @just_security. Author, Law and Morality at War.
2 subscribers
Jun 11 • 6 tweets • 3 min read
Good piece. A few more thoughts. 🧵

1. IHL rules still apply when troops are under fire, including distinction, precautions, and proportionality.

Serious violations still constitute war crimes.

Baruch is wrong to suggest otherwise.

Image
Image 2. In applying the proportionality rule, force protection does not carry infinite value.

Like any other military advantage, it must be weighed against foreseeable civilian harm.

Otherwise the proportionality rule would collapse anytime ground forces enter an urban area.
May 26 • 6 tweets • 4 min read
Niche IHL 🧵:

1. The United States takes the idiosyncratic view that precautions is an implication of proportionality, not a fundamental principle in its own right.

On Friday, it claimed that "Most States do not recognize an IHL 'principle of precaution.'"

Unlikely.

Image
Image 2. In the Security Council, in the last few months alone, Ecuador, France, Guayana, Malta, Mozambique, and Switzerland have specifically described precautions as a basic principle.


Image
Image
Image
Image
May 23 • 9 tweets • 3 min read
Thoughts before tomorrow's order 🧵

1. The Court will no doubt find that the assault on Rafah and the resulting mass displacement change the situation since its March order and create a further risk of irreparable prejudice to rights under the Genocide Convention. 2. In a more rational world, this finding alone would dominate the news, set off alarm bells throughout the international system, and trigger immediate action by the UN Security Council. Alas, that is not our world.

May 22 • 7 tweets • 4 min read
Thread on starvation, extermination, and genocide 🧵

1. The war crime of starvation is about depriving civilians of objects indispensable to their survival as a method of warfare, that is, as a means to achieve war aims.
Image
Image 2. The ICC prosecutor alleges that Netanyahu and Gallant starved Gazan civilians as a means of defeating Hamas, recovering hostages, and collectively punishing civilians. Image
May 20 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
Technical point:

1. The ICC Prosecutor argues that there is an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, due to Israel's use of force and belligerent occupation in Palestine, alongside the non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas. 2. This is important because, under the ICC Statute, the starvation war crime would only apply in the context of an international armed conflict.
May 17 • 27 tweets • 4 min read
And we're off. Gilad Noam striking a more combative different tone than in January.
Objects to the short timeline. Says the rest of the legal team was unavailable today. Asked to reschedule, was denied. Notes that SA changed its first request. Image Opens by reframing facts. Israel is fighting a war of self-defense, rocket fire ongoing. Rafah is a Hamas stronghold. 120 rockets fired last two weeks, hostages likely held. Says Palestinians will be "liberated" only if Hamas is defeated in Rafah.
May 17 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
Not bad. My take:

1. In January, the ICJ found a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the right of the Palestinians to be protected from acts of genocide.

In March, seven judges found there is a risk to their very existence.

bbc.com/news/articles/… 2. The Court found "plausible" the rights claimed by South Africa.

For some judges, that just means it's plausible that the rights exist under international law (obvi).

For other judges, that also means it's plausible that the rights have been violated.
May 14 • 11 tweets • 5 min read
Quick 🧵 on the new ICJ hearings on Gaza:

1. The Court faces two basic questions:

- Has the situation changed since March 28, creating further risk of irreparable prejudice that its prior orders do not fully address?

- If so, what should the Court order now? 2. South Africa argues:

- Rafah is the last refuge for civilians. An attack will kill thousands. So will mass expulsion (from starvation and disease).

- Israel now controls all land crossings.

- New evidence of IDF practices indicates further risk of genocidal killing.
Image
Image
Jan 29 • 7 tweets • 3 min read
Short 🧵 on the ICJ's order and self-defense.

1. The Court mentions self-defense twice, when it summarizes Israel's arguments (a) that the Court lacks prima facie jurisdiction and (b) that the rights claimed by South Africa are not plausible.

The Court rejected both arguments.
Image
Image 2. When the Court turns to South Africa's request that it order Israel to suspend military operations, the Court does not mention Israel's argument that this order would impair its right of self-defense.

It only mentions Israel's argument that this order would reverse precedent.
Image
Image
Jan 4 • 7 tweets • 4 min read
The Israel-Hamas conflict has not changed IHL itself. But note:

1. The Oct 27 UNGA resolution identified Israel as the occupying Power in Gaza.

Though not conclusive, this is substantial State practice supporting the 'functional' approach to the persistence of occupation.
Image 2. The same UNGA resolution, as well as the Dec. 22 UNSC resolution, affirm that IHL requires both parties to allow and facilitate humanitarian relief.
Image
Image
Dec 7, 2023 • 8 tweets • 3 min read
A few thoughts:

1. All States have a legal obligation to cooperate to bring to an end through lawful means any serious breach by a State of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens).
Image 2. The basic rules of international humanitarian law are peremptory norms.

For example, the prohibition of starvation is undoubtably a basic rule.

So is wilfully impeding relief supplies short of starvation, I would argue. Image
May 5, 2022 • 11 tweets • 6 min read
Many mistakes in this piece, starting with the title (the Glucksberg test is not originalist).

Small point: "Roe’s embrace of viability ... was directly derived from a highly influential lower-court decision written by Judge Jon O. Newman."

Sort of. 🧵 2. In Abele v. Markle II (1972), Judge Newman argued that the right to abortion logically follows from precedent.

If you have a right to contraception to avoid pregnancy then a fortiori you have a right to abortion to terminate a pregnancy.

The liberty interest is the same.
May 3, 2022 • 4 tweets • 3 min read
The author of Abele v. Markle II (1972), the best abortion rights decision ever written, among other things. ImageImageImageImage This part is my favorite. Profound point, totally lost on the authors of the Dobbs draft. ImageImageImage
May 29, 2021 • 13 tweets • 4 min read
1. Brian's reply to my post on the Al Jalaa tower attack is quite respectful, which I appreciate.

At the same time, Brian makes some mistakes that are worth addressing. 🧵 2. The *tower* was no long a military objective by its *use* if Hamas evacuated it.

That's true even if they left behind *equipment* that was a military objective by its *nature*.

Here, Brian seems to conflate the tower with the equipment: Image
May 27, 2021 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
The IDF’s attack on Al Jalaa Tower wasn't the worst thing it did in Gaza.

But it was illegal.

That seemed worth saying.

My latest @just_security

justsecurity.org/76657/the-idfs… 2. This essay expands on this earlier thread:
May 19, 2021 • 9 tweets • 3 min read
Mike's analysis of the IDF attack on Al Jalaa Tower has many problems. Here are a few🧵

1. The "collateral damage" was not "minimal." There were 60 residential units. The civilians living there lost their homes, their belongings, and some measure of safety from the carnage. 2. Military advantage is assessed *in the circumstances ruling at the time* of the attack.

The IDF says Hamas and IJ *left the building with their equipment.*

The IDF leveled the building anyway.
May 17, 2021 • 10 tweets • 3 min read
International law requires effective advance warning of *otherwise lawful attacks* which nonetheless endanger civilians.

These are not that.

These are not 'warnings'.

These are threats.

Short 🧵 2. The basic point here has been made by others, including by many Palestinians. This is just a more technical legal version. Honestly, any decent person with common sense will find this all obvious.

Feb 24, 2021 • 49 tweets • 4 min read
México opening strong, rejecting the cross-border use of force against NSAs on the premise that the territorial state is 'unwilling or unable' to suppress them. Vietnam obviously agrees, but I didn't hear an unambiguous statement.
Feb 22, 2021 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
Con Law folks: I cut a week of material from my con law theory seminar, so I once again welcome suggested readings, ideally on executive/separation of powers or voting rights in the U.S.

Thanks! P.S. I'm pretty happy with my readings on speech, religion, equality, and criminal justice, but am always open to more possibilities.
Dec 30, 2020 • 22 tweets • 6 min read
1. For my final JUS COGENS THREAD of 2020, I shall reveal the correct answer to the question below. Note: I typically keep my jus cogens threads light. This one is not. But I hope it's interesting.
Dec 17, 2020 • 20 tweets • 7 min read
1. This THREAD has everything.

Jus cogens.

Hans Kelsen.

The Israel-Egypt conflict.

The right of self-defense and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

Buckle. Up. 🧵 2. On August 1, 1951, the UN Security Council met to discuss "Restrictions imposed by Egypt on the passage of ships through the Suez Canal" bound for Israel.