(October 15, 2024)
One rogue nation cannot declare war on the UN itself and continue to get away with it
(October 15, 2024)
One rogue nation cannot declare war on the UN itself and continue to get away with it
(Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.)
Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
(…)
Article IX
Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.
Article 96
(1) The General Assembly, the Governing Council or the Security Council may request the International Renewal Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.
(2) Other organs of the Renewed United Nations and specialised agencies, which may at any time be so authorised by the Governing Council or by the General Assembly, may also request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.
SECTION 30. All differences arising out of the interpretation or application of the present convention shall be referred to the International Court of Justice, unless in any case it is agreed by the parties to have recourse to another mode of settlement. If a difference arises between the United Nations on the one hand and a Member on the other hand, a request shall be made for an advisory opinion on any legal question involved in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of the Statute of the Court. The opinion given by the Court shall be accepted as decisive by the parties.
(November 6, 2024)
Malaysian prime minister Anwar Ibrahim has announced that Malaysia is preparing a draft resolution for the UN General Assembly to expel Israel from the United Nations.
“We are also studying (a proposal)… after the violation of laws, principles and UN decisions, for Israel to be expelled as a member of the UN,” Anwar told parliament in a special address on Monday.
Describing this statement as not being arrogant, he noted that his counterparts from numerous countries have also reminded him of the risks associated with being vocal on this matter.
“This morning, I talked with the foreign minister about the statements we have issued and how to ensure that Malaysia is not adversely affected.
“If you read the latest book on the roles of several countries, including the United States, you will see how many governments they have toppled because of the firm stance the countries were taking that they deemed contrary to their own. This is a risk I always consider and do not dismiss.”
Malaysia has prepared a draft resolution of the United Nations General Assembly (UN) which, among others, suggests that Israel be removed as a member of the organisation should there be a violation of laws, rules and decisions in issues involving Palestine.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim told the Dewan Rakyat yesterday that the draft resolution is in the negotiation process and is expected to be tabled at the UN General Assembly for approval soon.
“Strong measures, including the removal of Israel from the United Nations after its human rights violations and crimes of genocide, must be implemented as soon as possible,” Anwar said. “Malaysia will ensure that this agenda is heard and given attention, so that the atrocities of the Israeli regime can be stopped and that crucial aid can reach the Palestinian people at a time when the massacre continues to escalate,” the Malaysian prime minister said in a speech shared in part on the social media platform X.
Anwar said he would present the measure at an emergency summit convened by the Arab League in Riyadh next Monday.
KUALA LUMPUR (ANN/THE STAR) – Malaysia is playing a key role in drafting a United Nations resolution addressing the Israel-Palestine conflict, which could potentially seek to revoke Israel’s UN membership, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim announced.
Speaking in the Dewan Rakyat on Monday, Anwar noted that the resolution also aims to obtain an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the presence and operations of international agencies in Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).
The proposal, said Anwar, will be made at the Arab-Islamic summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on Nov 11, which he will be attending.
“Malaysia intends to use this meeting to get support from Arab and Muslim nations on this initiative and to prevent the implementation of the Oct 28 decision of the Israeli Parliament to wipe out UNRWA and worsen the humanitarian situation in northern Gaza which has been ridden by famine since basic aid has been cut off,” Anwar said.
Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim announced this development in the Dewan Rakyat (Parliament) on 4 November stating that the draft resolution is currently undergoing negotiation and is expected to be tabled at the UNGA for approval soon.
On 31 October 2024, Malaysia joined a Core Group tasked with preparing a resolution requesting an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), according to Anwar.
(October 15, 2024)
One rogue nation cannot declare war on the UN itself and continue to get away with it
Article 96
(1) The General Assembly, the Governing Council or the Security Council may request the International Renewal Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.
(2) Other organs of the Renewed United Nations and specialised agencies, which may at any time be so authorised by the Governing Council or by the General Assembly, may also request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.
SECTION 3. The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whom soever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action.
(…)
SECTION 30. All differences arising out of the interpretation or application of the present convention shall be referred to the International Court of Justice, unless in any case it is agreed by the parties to have recourse to another mode of settlement. If a difference arises between the United Nations on the one hand and a Member on the other hand, a request shall be made for an advisory opinion on any legal question involved in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of the Statute of the Court. The opinion given by the Court shall be accepted as decisive by the parties.
Article 96
(1) The General Assembly, the Governing Council or the Security Council may request the International Renewal Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.
(2) Other organs of the Renewed United Nations and specialised agencies, which may at any time be so authorised by the Governing Council or by the General Assembly, may also request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.
SECTION 30. All differences arising out of the interpretation or application of the present convention shall be referred to the International Court of Justice, unless in any case it is agreed by the parties to have recourse to another mode of settlement. If a difference arises between the United Nations on the one hand and a Member on the other hand, a request shall be made for an advisory opinion on any legal question involved in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of the Statute of the Court. The opinion given by the Court shall be accepted as decisive by the parties.
Bjorge said the legislation is “an outrage” against a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, and that the latter must “do everything within its capacity” to protect Unrwa.
“In the face of such an outrage against it, the UN must lose no time in taking action,” he said.
“It should request the International Court of Justice for an urgent advisory opinion, which under the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities will be binding on Israel and on the United Nations itself.”
(October 6, 2024)
1. Nicaragua: applied to join on 8 February
2. Belgium: declared intention to join on 11 March
3. Ireland: declared intention to join on 27 March
4. Colombia: applied to join on 5 April
5. Turkey: declared intention to join on 1 May
6. Libya: applied to join on 10 May
7. Egypt: declared intention to join on 12 May
8. Maldives: declared intention to join on 13 May
9. Mexico: applied to join on 28 May
10. Chile: declared intention to join on 2 June
11. Palestine: applied to join on 3 June
12. Spain: declared intention to join on 6 June
13. Cuba: declared intention to join on 22 June
(…)
The ICJ has not granted any of the requests so far.
Das Aussendepartement hat den israelischen Vorstoss in einen UN-Stützpunkt verurteilt.
Zuvor hatten israelische Panzer das Tor zu einer Unifil-Einrichtung durchbrochen, über ein Dutzend Blauhelme wurden verletzt.
Auch der Papst hat dazu aufgerufen, die «Friedenstruppen zu respektieren».
(Issued on: 13/10/2024 – 22:57)
„In a deeply worrying incident that occurred today, the entrance door of a UN position was deliberately breached by IDF armored vehicles,“ he added in a statement.
At least five peacekeepers have been wounded in recent days as Israel targets Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
(July 19, 2024)
278. Taking note of the resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly, the Court is of the view that Member States are under an obligation not to recognize any changes in the physical character or demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the territory occupied by Israel on 5 June 1967, including East Jerusalem, except as agreed by the parties through negotiations and to distinguish in their dealings with Israel between the territory of the State of Israel and the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Court considers that the duty of distinguishing dealings with Israel between its own territory and the Occupied Palestinian Territory encompasses, inter alia, the obligation to abstain from treaty relations with Israel in all cases in which it purports to act on behalf of the Occupied Palestinian Territory or a part thereof on matters concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory or a part of its territory; to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory or parts thereof which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory; to abstain, in the establishment and maintenance of diplomatic missions in Israel, from any recognition of its illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and to take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (see Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, pp. 55-56, paras. 122, 125-127).
(…)
281. Finally, the Court is of the view that the precise modalities to bring to an end Israel’s
unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is a matter to be dealt with by the General Assembly, which requested this opinion, as well as the Security Council. Therefore, it is for the General Assembly and the Security Council to consider what further action is required to put an end to the illegal presence of Israel, taking into account the present Advisory Opinion.
(30.04.2024)
Nicaragua hatte als vorläufige Massnahmen den sofortigen Stopp deutscher Rüstungslieferungen an Israel gefordert. Das zentralamerikanische Land begründete dies damit, dass Deutschland durch Waffenlieferungen an Israel einen Genozid ermögliche und damit gegen internationales Recht verstosse. Nicaragua hatte zudem eine Wiederaufnahme von Zahlungen eingefrorener Beiträge für das Palästinenserhilfswerk UNRWA im Gazastreifen gefordert.
“On Tuesday, 30 April 2024, the International Court of Justice will deliver its Order on the Request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Nicaragua in the case concerning Alleged Breaches of Certain International Obligations in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” the Court said in a statement.
THE HAGUE, 26 April 2024. On Tuesday 30 April 2024, the International Court of Justice will deliver its Order on the Request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Nicaragua in the case concerning Alleged Breaches of Certain International Obligations in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Nicaragua v. Germany). A public sitting will take place at 3 p.m. at the Peace Palace in The Hague, during which Judge Nawaf Salam, President of the Court, will read the Court’s Order.
(19.07.1986)
The imprudence of this acceptance was demonstrated by the Nicaraguan case, in which the Court ruled that the United States is using force illegally in Central America. That case should not – and need not – have gone to the Court. To make sure the United States retains sovereign discretion to defend itself and its allies, any new American acceptance of the Court‘s compulsory jurisdiction should emulate the good sense of others like India and Kenya by excluding disputes involving armed conflict. America -acting alone or with its allies – still needs the freedom to protect freedom. The finger on the trigger cannot be that of the global judiciary.
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986)[2] was a case where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Sandinistas and by mining Nicaragua‘s harbors. The case was decided in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States with the awarding of reparations to Nicaragua.
(no date / presumably 2004)
The protest at U.S. exemption of individuals from criminal jurisdiction has been widely reported. The continued refusal of the United States to subject its own actions, especially the use of force against others, to judgment by the ICJ has been treated as a non-event.
The president who turned America‘s back on judgment under international law was Ronald Reagan. His action resulted from fear (especially after prominent condemnation by Senators Barry Goldwater and Daniel Patrick Moynihan) of an adverse Court ruling in Nicaragua‘s case against the U.S.
Tatsächlich sitzt Deutschland allein auf der Anklagebank. Das ist möglich, weil es – so wie Nicaragua – den Gerichtshof anerkennt – und die UN-Konvention zur Verhütung von Völkermord. Auch die USA hatten ihre Zahlungen an UNRWA gestoppt, erkennen den IGH aber nicht an.
Nicaragua hatte noch weitere Länder im Visier: Kanada und Großbritannien haben eine Frist von einem halben Jahr, um zu reagieren. Und die Niederlande traten mit Nicaragua in einen Dialog – den Nicaragua mit Deutschland nicht suchte.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, holds public hearings on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Nicaragua in the case Nicaragua v. Germany on 8 and 9 April 2024, at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the seat of the Court. Session held under the presidency of Judge Nawaf Salam, President of the Court.
The Government of the Republic of Nicaragua is represented by:
HE Mr Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Ambassador of the Republic of Nicaragua to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Nicaragua to the international organizations based in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, member of the International Law Commission,
as Agent and Counsel;
Mr Alain Pellet, Emeritus Professor of the University Paris Nanterre, former Chairperson of the International Law Commission, member and former President of the Institut de droit international,
Mr Daniel Müller, Founding Partner of FAR Avocats, member of the Paris Bar,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Ms Claudia Loza Obregon, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Nicaragua,
Mr Ysam Soualhi, PhD candidate, Faculty of Law, University of Angers,
as Assistant Counsel;
Ms Sherly Noguera de Argüello, Consul General of the Republic of Nicaragua,
as Administrator;
Ms Kassandra Gómez Pineda, First Secretary, Permanent Representation of the Republic of
Nicaragua to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,
Mr Pedro Hernández Balladarez, Financial Administrative Officer, Permanent Representation of the Republic of Nicaragua to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,
HE Mr Ammar Hijazi, Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates for Multilateral Affairs of the State of Palestine,
HE Mr Omar Awadallah, Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates for the United Nations and Specialized Agencies of the State of Palestine,
Mr Federico Argüello Noguera,
as Members of the Delegation.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is represented by:
Ms Tania von Uslar-Gleichen, Legal Adviser and Director-General for Legal Affairs, Federal Foreign Office of the Federal Republic of Germany,
as Agent;
Ms Wiebke Rückert, Director for Public International Law, Federal Foreign Office of the Federal Republic of Germany,
Case: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/131
Document quoted: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/131/131-20040709-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf (pdf)
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, holds public hearings on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Nicaragua in the case Nicaragua v. Germany on 8 and 9 April 2024, at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the seat of the Court. Session held under the presidency of Judge Nawaf Salam, President of the Court.
(15.03.2024)
It is recalled that Nicaragua filed an Application instituting proceedings against Germany concerning alleged violations by Germany of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, “intransgressible principles of international humanitarian law” and other norms of general international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly the Gaza Strip (see press release 2024/19).
The hearings will be devoted to the request for the indication of provisional measures
contained in Nicaragua’s Application. Nicaragua asks the Court to indicate provisional measures as a matter of extreme urgency, pending the Court’s determination on the merits of the case, with respect to Germany’s “participation in the ongoing plausible genocide and serious breaches of international humanitarian law and other peremptory norms of general international law occurring in the Gaza Strip”.
(01.03.2024)
It is recalled that Nicaragua filed an Application instituting proceedings against Germany concerning alleged violations by Germany of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, “intransgressible principles of international humanitarian law” and other norms of general international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly the Gaza Strip (see press release 2024/19).
The hearings will be devoted to the request for the indication of provisional measures contained in Nicaragua’s Application. Nicaragua asks the Court to indicate provisional measures as a matter of extreme urgency, pending the Court’s determination on the merits of the case, with respect to Germany’s “participation in the ongoing plausible genocide and serious breaches of international humanitarian law and other peremptory norms of general international law occurring in the Gaza Strip”.
(16.02.2024)
In the case of South Africa v. Israel, two violations in particular have been raised: complicity in genocide and failure to prevent genocide. For complicity, the ICJ has explained that it includes “the provision of means to enable or facilitate the commission of the crime,” such as furnishing “aid or assistance.” The state needs at least to have acted knowing that the perpetrator of the genocide had a special intent, or dolus specialis, “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” The ICJ left open the possibility that the complicit state would also need to share this special intent. However, courts have not required complicit parties to share the special intent in international criminal cases, suggesting that the ICJ might not require it.
(January 15, 2024)
The United States must now be held accountable for the crimes it committed,‘ says Van Rensburg, who is leading the 47-lawyers team.
“We intend to bring legal proceedings against the U.S. Government based on overwhelming evidence that the U.S. Government has, and is, aiding, abetting and supporting, encouraging or providing material assistance and means to Israel and the Israeli Defense Forces. This conduct by the U.S. Government has enabled and continues to enable Israel to engage in international crimes against the Palestinian people,” the South African lawyers said in a letter sent to US President Joe Biden on January 2.
(25.03.2024)
On April 8 and 9, the International Court of Justice will once again hold hearings on the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
This time the judges in The Hague will be listening to arguments in the case brought by Nicaragua against Germany.
The Central American nation accuses Berlin of violating its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention and other “intransgressible principles of international humanitarian law,” including the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Damit entspricht der IGH einem Antrag Südafrikas im laufenden Völkermord-Verfahren gegen Israel. Bereits Ende Januar hatte das Gericht Sofortmaßnahmen angeordnet und Israel aufgetragen, alles zu tun, um einen Völkermord im Gazastreifen zu verhindern. Angesichts der sich verschlimmernden Lage in dem Kriegsgebiet und einer drohenden Hungersnot hatte Südafrika zusätzliche Maßnahmen verlangt. Dem entsprach das Gericht. Entscheidungen des UN-Gerichtshofes sind bindend.