The Council is composed of 15 Members:
Five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term year):
– Algeria (2025)
– Denmark (2026)
– Greece (2026)
– Guyana (2025)
– Pakistan (2026)
– Panama (2026)
– Republic of Korea (2025)
– Sierra Leone (2025)
– Slovenia (2025)
– Somalia (2026)
It is not clear whether the draft would have enough support at the Security Council to be approved. Nine of the 15 members would need to vote in favor of it, and all five permanent members, including Russia and China, would have to abstain from a veto.
The draft is largely in line with Mr. Trump’s plan, which was first presented in September. It says the force would operate under the guidance of an international body known as the “Board of Peace,” and that its mandate would expire on Dec. 31, 2027. The draft suggests that date could be extended.
The U.S. sent several UN Security Council members a draft resolution on Monday for the establishment of an international force in Gaza for a duration of at least two years, according to a copy obtained by Axios.
(October 27, 2025)
„We are in control of our security, and we have also made it clear regarding international forces that Israel will determine which forces are unacceptable to us, and this is how we operate and will continue to operate,“ Netanyahu said.
„This is, of course, acceptable to the United States as well, as its most senior representatives have expressed in recent days,“ he told a session of his cabinet.
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.
(September 5, 2025)
The order comes as some of Trump’s closest supporters on Capitol Hill proposed legislation that would codify the new name into law, with Congress having the sole power to establish, shutter and rename federal departments.
Hamas, a terrorist organization, began this war with its brutal attack on October 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 innocent people and took 250 hostages. Israel, as any other country, had a right to defend itself from Hamas.
But, over the last two years, Israel has not simply defended itself against Hamas. Instead, it has waged an all-out war against the entire Palestinian people. Many legal experts have now concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The International Association of Genocide Scholars concluded that “Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide.” The Israeli human rights groups B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel have reached the same conclusion, as have international groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Just yesterday, an independent commission of experts appointed by the United Nations echoed this finding. These experts concluded that: “It is clear that there is an intent to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza through acts that meet the criteria set forth in the Genocide Convention.”
I agree.
This post does not focus on assessing the substantive grounds which can be relied on to challenge the lawfulness of Yvette Cooper’s decision-making in seeking to proscribe Palestine Action. Instead, it focuses on the constitutional implications of the decision to proscribe Palestine Action. In short, I argue that the Home Secretary’s decision collapses the distinction between violence against the person and violence against property. This represents a seismic break with constitutional norms regarding how the state regulates the fundamental rights to freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of expression, and the right to freedom of assembly. The decision is a chilling example of executive power being wielded to coercively constrain personal and collective liberties in the UK.
(June 19, 2025)
In a letter addressed to the Federal Minister of the Interior of Germany published today, Commissioner O’Flaherty raises concerns about restrictions to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly of persons protesting in the context of the conflict in Gaza, as well as about reports of excessive use of force by police against protesters, including children.
Commissioner O’Flaherty also observes restrictions on events, symbols, or other forms of expression in this context. He recalls that member states have little scope to impose restrictions on political speech or on debate on matters of public interest, in line with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe standards on freedom of expression, hate speech and hate crime. He urges the German authorities to be vigilant that the working definition of antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance is not distorted, instrumentalised or misapplied to stifle freedom of expression and legitimate criticism, including of the state of Israel.
Recalling that member states have legal obligations to refrain from undue interference with human rights and to ensure the effective enjoyment of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly for all, the Commissioner asks the German authorities to avoid taking measures that discriminate against persons based on their political or other opinions, religion or belief, ethnic origin, nationality or migration status.
(June 6, 2025)
It is my understanding that since February 2025, the Berlin authorities have imposed restrictions on the use of the Arabic language and cultural symbols in the context of the protests. In some cases, such as an assembly in Berlin on 15 May 2025, marches have been restricted to stationary gatherings. Furthermore, protestors were allegedly subject to intrusive surveillance, online or in person, and arbitrary police checks. I am also concerned by reports of excessive use of force by police against protesters, including minors, sometimes leading to injuries.
(…)
I understand that restrictions have been justified on the basis that events, symbols, or other forms of expression “disrupt public order” or “disturb public peace”. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights’ (the Court) establishes that freedom of expression “applies not only to ‘information’ and ‘ideas’ that are favourably received, regarded as inoffensive, or which leave one indifferent […] – it implies pluralism, tolerance and openness, without which there is no ‘democratic society’”. In assessing the necessity of the interference, member states have little scope to impose restrictions on political speech or on debate on matters of public interest, unless the views expressed comprise incitements to violence, and must always carry out such an assessment case by case.
I observe that other justifications invoked for the restrictions on rights include the prevention of antisemitism. I note with concern reports indicating that the working definition of antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has been interpreted by some German authorities in ways which lead to the blanket classification of criticism of Israel as antisemitic. In that regard, I urge you to be vigilant that the IHRA working definition is not distorted, instrumentalised or misapplied to stifle freedom of expression and legitimate criticism, including of the state of Israel
(June 19, 2025)
In a letter addressed to the Federal Minister of the Interior of Germany published today, Commissioner O’Flaherty raises concerns about restrictions to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly of persons protesting in the context of the conflict in Gaza, as well as about reports of excessive use of force by police against protesters, including children.
Commissioner O’Flaherty also observes restrictions on events, symbols, or other forms of expression in this context. He recalls that member states have little scope to impose restrictions on political speech or on debate on matters of public interest, in line with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe standards on freedom of expression, hate speech and hate crime. He urges the German authorities to be vigilant that the working definition of antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance is not distorted, instrumentalised or misapplied to stifle freedom of expression and legitimate criticism, including of the state of Israel.
Recalling that member states have legal obligations to refrain from undue interference with human rights and to ensure the effective enjoyment of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly for all, the Commissioner asks the German authorities to avoid taking measures that discriminate against persons based on their political or other opinions, religion or belief, ethnic origin, nationality or migration status.
Der Menschenrechtskommissar des Europarates, Michael O’Flaherty, hat in einem am 19. Juni veröffentlichten Brief an Bundesinnenminister Alexander Dobrindt seine Besorgnis über Einschränkungen der Meinungs- und Versammlungsfreiheit in Deutschland zum Ausdruck gebracht. Explizit verweist er in dem Schreiben auf die behördliche Repression von Protesten gegen Israels Vorgehen in Gaza sowie eine Instrumentalisierung des Antisemitismusvorwurfs, „um legitime Kritik, auch am Staat Israel, zu unterdrücken.“
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
(December 13, 2015)
Das Wort „terror“ ist lateinisch und bedeutet ins Deutsche übersetzt „Schrecken“. Der vom Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, George Bush Junior, am 20. September 2001 vor dem Kongress ausgerufene weltweite und zeitlich unbegrenzte „war on terror“ ist somit in seiner Begrifflichkeit bereits aus zwei Sprachen zusammengesetzt und vielfältig übersetzbar – z.B. durch „Krieg mit Schrecken“ (entsprechend „on purpose“, „mit Absicht“).
Da Krieg aber unzweifelhaft selbst Schrecken verursacht, ergibt sich bereits in dieser Begriffsstruktur des heute vierzehnjährigen Krieges eine perpuitive, sich selbst erzeugende und multiplizierende Dynamik, in der „Schrecken gegen Schrecken“ kämpft und so alle (para)militärischen Erfolge und Misserfolge irrelevant werden, da es jedesmal den gleichen Gewinner gibt. Vergleichbar wäre dies mit einer Kreislaufbewegung in einer Art „Dynamo des Schreckens“, mit Krieg und Terror als den beiden Polen des gleichen Magneten.
Dabei kann diese Kreislaufbewegung nie zu einem Ende führen. Denn auch wenn man nun „Terror“ bzw „Terrorismus“ entsprechend der heute allgemein adaptierten Auffassung als asymmetrische Kriegführung definiert, gelangt man zur Definition des „war on terror“ als einem „Krieg gegen asymmetrische Kriegführung“, also einem „Krieg gegen Krieg“, der sogar im Falle von Niederlagen als Sieger hervorgeht, weil er gegen sich selbst geführt wird und so nie endgültig gewonnen oder verloren, sondern nur ewig weiter geführt werden kann.
In die konkrete Realität (mindestens) seit 2001 übertragen, ergibt sich die Kreislaufbewegung wie folgt: Attentate (bzw Terror / asymmetrische Kriegführung, im Hinterland oder anvisierten Zielgebiet) > Krieg (Einmarsch, Invasion, Intervention) > Attentate (Massaker in den Besatzungszonen, oder im Hinterland der kriegführenden Staaten) > Krieg (ggf. Besatzungskrieg, Drohnenkrieg, etc) > Attentate > Krieg > Attentate > Krieg > Attentate > Krieg > … usw, usw.
Auslösendes Moment bzw Trigger-Event für diesen Dynamo des Schreckens: die quasi „kinetische Energie“ der Attentate des 11. Septembers, um den ganzen Kreislauf überhaupt in Gang zu setzen.
Grundbedingung für die Aufrechterhaltung dieser Dynamik: die unbedingte Unterwerfung unter die Kriegslogik (nach Attentaten bestimmen klandestine Gruppen wie Attentäter und / oder Spione und deren Insitutionen die Realität und Tathergang. Wer widerspricht ist „Verschwörungstheoretiker“ und damit Nazi, Islamist, Spinner und / oder Sympatisant und wird nach Zugriffsmöglichkeit der jeweiligen Behörden entsprechend gesellschaftlich stigmatisiert oder physisch neutralisiert bzw unter „Überwachung“ gestellt).
Artikel 63
(1) Der Bundeskanzler wird auf Vorschlag des Bundespräsidenten vom Bundestage ohne Aussprache gewählt.
(2) Gewählt ist, wer die Stimmen der Mehrheit der Mitglieder des Bundestages auf sich vereinigt. Der Gewählte ist vom Bundespräsidenten zu ernennen.
(3) Wird der Vorgeschlagene nicht gewählt, so kann der Bundestag binnen vierzehn Tagen nach dem Wahlgange mit mehr als der Hälfte seiner Mitglieder einen Bundeskanzler wählen.
(4) Kommt eine Wahl innerhalb dieser Frist nicht zustande, so findet unverzüglich ein neuer Wahlgang statt, in dem gewählt ist, wer die meisten Stimmen erhält. Vereinigt der Gewählte die Stimmen der Mehrheit der Mitglieder des Bundestages auf sich, so muß der Bundespräsident ihn binnen sieben Tagen nach der Wahl ernennen. Erreicht der Gewählte diese Mehrheit nicht, so hat der Bundespräsident binnen sieben Tagen entweder ihn zu ernennen oder den Bundestag aufzulösen.
J USTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE K AGAN and J USTICE J ACKSON join, and with whom J USTICE BARRETT joins as to Parts II and III–B, dissenting.
(…)
There is, of course, no ongoing war between the United States and Venezuela.
(…)
Congress requires the President to “mak[e] public proclamation” of his intention to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. §21. President Trump did just the opposite. In what can be understood only as covert preparation to skirt both the requirements of the Act and the Constitution’s guarantee of due process, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began moving Venezuelan migrants from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers across the country to the El Valle Detention Facility in South Texas before the President had even signed the Proclamation. ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___ 2025 WL 890401, *3 (D DC, Mar. 24, 2025). The transferred detainees, most of whom denied past or present affiliation with any gang, did not know the reason for their transfer until the evening of Friday, March 14, when they were apparently “pulled from their cells and told that they would be deported the next day to an unknown destination.”
B
Suspecting that the President had covertly signed a Proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, several lawyers anticipated their clients’ imminent deportation and filed a putative class action in the District of Columbia. App. to Brief in Opposition To Application To Vacate 9a (App. to BIO). They contested that Tren de Aragua had committed or attempted the kind of “ ‘invasion’ ” or “ ‘predatory incursion’ ” required to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. Ibid. They also asserted that it would violate the Due Process Clause to deport their clients before they had any chance to challenge the Government’s allegations of gang membership. Id., at 26a. The plaintiffs did not seek release from custody, but asked the court only to restrain the Government’s planned deportations under the Proclamation. Id., at 9a, 29a.
In the early morning of March 15, the District Court informed the Government of the lawsuit and scheduled an emergency hearing. Despite knowing of plaintiffs’ claim
that it would be unlawful to remove them under the Proclamation, the Government ushered the named plaintiffs onto planes along with dozens of other detainees, all without any opportunity to contact their lawyers, much less notice or opportunity to be heard.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a 17-page dissent joined in full by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson and in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She contended that her colleagues’ “decision to intervene in this litigation is as inexplicable as it is dangerous.”
Jackson wrote her own two-page dissent in which she lamented that the majority’s “fly-by-night approach to the work of the Supreme Court is not only misguided. It is also dangerous.”
The 1798 law at the center of the case is the Alien Enemies Act, which allows the president to detain or deport citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing or any other review by a court if either of two things occurs: Congress declares war, or there is an “invasion” or “predatory incursion.” The law has been invoked only three times – during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.
The court’s action appears to bar the administration from immediately resuming the flights that last month carried hundreds of migrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The flights came soon after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act for the first time since World War II to justify the deportations under a presidential proclamation calling the Tren de Aragua gang an invading force.
The majority said nothing about those flights, which took off without providing the hearing the justices now say is necessary.
Section 1
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
“A lot of people want me to do it,” he said to the program’s host, Kristen Welker, about the possibility of a third term. “But we have — my thinking is, we have a long way to go. I’m focused on the current.”
Any attempt to seek a third term would run afoul of the 22nd Amendment, which begins, “No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.”
(29.April 1999)
European commission documents obtained this week reveal plans to require manufacturers and operators to build in „interception interfaces“ to the Internet and all future digital communications systems. The plans, drafted by a US-led international organisation of police and security agencies, will be proposed to EU Justice and Home Affairs ministers at the end of May.
(…)
The plans require the installation of a network of tapping centres throughout Europe, operating almost instantly across all national boundaries, providing access to every kind of communications including the net and satellites. A German tapping centre could intercept Internet messages in Britain, or a British detective could listen to Dutch phone calls. There could even be several tapping centres listening in at once.
A ruling group is a ruling group so long as it can nominate its successors. The Party is not concerned with perpetuating its blood but with perpetuating itself. WHO wields power is not important, provided that the hierarchical structure remains always the same.
(…)
From the proletarians nothing is to be feared. Left to themselves, they will continue from generation to generation and from century to century, working, breeding, and dying, not only without any impulse to rebel, but without the power of grasping that the world could be other than it is. They could only become dangerous if the advance of industrial technique made it necessary to educate them more highly; but, since military and commercial rivalry are no longer important, the level of popular education is actually declining. What opinions the masses hold, or do not hold, is looked on as a matter of indifference. They can be granted intellectual liberty because they have no intellect. In a Party member, on the other hand, not even the smallest deviation of opinion on the most unimportant subject can be tolerated.
A Party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police. Even when he is alone he can never be sure that he is alone. Wherever he may be, asleep or awake, working or resting, in his bath or in bed, he can be inspected without warning and without knowing that he is being in-
spected. Nothing that he does is indifferent. His friendships, his relaxations, his behaviour towards his wife and children, the expression of his face when he is alone, the words he mutters in sleep, even the characteristic movements of his body, are all jealously scrutinized. Not only any actual misdemeanour, but any eccentricity, however small, any change of habits, any nervous mannerism that could possibly be the symptom of an inner struggle, is certain to be detected.
Eine herrschende Gruppe ist so lange eine herrschende Gruppe, als sie ihre Nachfolger bestimmen kann. Der Partei geht es nicht darum, ewig ihr Blut, sondern sich selbst ewig zu behaupten. Wer die Macht ausübt, ist nicht wichtig, vorausgesetzt, daß die hierarchische Struktur immer dieselbe bleibt.
(…)
Von den Proletariern ist nichts zu befürchten. Sich selbst überlassen, werden sie von Generation zu Generation und von Jahrhundert zu Jahrhundert fortfahren zu arbeiten, Kinder in die Welt zu setzen und zu sterben, nicht nur ohne jeden Antrieb, zu rebellieren, sondern ohne sich auch nur vorstellen zu können, daß die Welt anders sein könnte, als sie ist. Zudem sind sie ein geistloser Brei ohne jede Art von Führung. Sie könnten nur gefährlich werden, wenn die fortschreitende Entwicklung der industriellen Technik es notwendig machen sollte, ihnen eine höhere Erziehung angedeihen zu lassen; aber da die militärische und merkantile Konkurrenz keine Bedeutung mehr hat, ist das Niveau der öffentlichen Erziehung im Sinken begriffen.
Welche Ansichten die Massen vertreten oder nicht vertreten, wird als belanglos angesehen. Man darf ihnen getrost geistige Freiheit einräumen, denn sie haben keinen Geist. Andererseits kann bei einem Parteimitglied auch nicht die kleinste Meinungsabweichung in der unbedeutendsten Frage geduldet werden. Ein Angehöriger der Partei lebt von der Geburt bis zum Tode unter den Augen der Gedankenpolizei. Sogar wenn er allein ist, kann er nie sicher sein, ob er wirklich allein ist. Wo er auch sein mag, ob er schläft oder wacht, arbeitet oder ausruht, in seinem Bad oder in seinem Bett liegt, kann er ohne Warnung und ohne zu wissen, daß er beobachtet wird, beobachtet werden. Nichts, was er tut, ist gleichgültig. Seine Freundschaften, seine Zerstreuungen, sein Benehmen gegen seine Frau und seine Kinder, sein Gesichtsausdruck, wenn er allein ist, die von ihm im Schlaf gemurmelten Worte, sogar die ihm eigentümlichen Bewegungen seines Körpers, alles wird einer peinlich genauen Prüfung unterzogen. Nicht nur jedes wirkliche Vergehen, sondern jede Schrullenhaftigkeit, sie mag noch so unbedeutend sein, jede Gewohnheitsänderung, jede nervöse Absonderlichkeit, die möglicherweise das Symptom eines inneren Kampfes ist, können unweigerlich entdeckt werden.
Nichtfinanzielle Unternehmen, auch bekannt als nichtfinanzielle Kapitalgesellschaften, spielen eine bedeutende Rolle in der Wirtschaft. Zu diesen Unternehmen zählen verschiedene Kapitalgesellschaften wie Aktiengesellschaften (AG) und Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH), sowie Personengesellschaften wie Offene Handelsgesellschaften (OHG) und Kommanditgesellschaften (KG). Darüber hinaus umfassen sie rechtlich unselbstständige Eigenbetriebe des Staates und private Organisationen ohne Erwerbszweck, beispielsweise Krankenhäuser und Pflegeheime, sowie Wirtschaftsverbände.
(February 2009)
Vorbemerkung
Mit der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1392/2007 1) wurden erstmals Nichtfinanzielle Vermögensbilanzen in das Lieferprogramm der Volkswirtschaftlichen Gesamtrechnungen (VGR) an das Statistische Amt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (Eurostat) aufgenommen. Die Bereitstellung entsprechender Daten ist jedoch mit Ausnahme der Angaben zu Wohnbauten freiwillig.
(…)
1.2 Inhalt und Aufbau nichtfinanzieller
Vermögensbilanzen
Nichtfinanzielles Vermögen, oft auch veraltet oder vereinfacht als Sachvermögen bezeichnet, sind alle Vermögensgüter, also in jedem Falle Aktiva.
(…)
Übersicht 2 gibt die Liste der Variablen und deren Klassifikations-Codes für die Tabelle 26 – Nichtfinanzielle Vermögensbilanzen – des ESVG-Lieferpro-
gramms wieder.
(…)
1. Produzierte Vermögensgüter
2. Anlagegüter
3. Sachanlagen
4. Wohnbauten
5. Nichtwohnbauten
6. Nichtwohngebäude
7. Sonstige Bauten
8. Ausrüstungen
9. Nutztiere und Nutzpflanzungen
10. Immaterielle Anlagegüter
11. Suchbohrungen
12. Software
13. Urheberrechte
14. Sonstige immaterielle Anlagegüter
15. Vorräte
16. Wertsachen
17. Nichtproduzierte Vermögensgüter
18. Nichtproduziertes Sachvermögen
19. Grund und Boden
20. Bodenschätze
21. Freie Tier- und Pflanzenbestände, Wasserreserven
22. Immaterielle nichtproduzierte Vermögensgüter
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.
(October 29, 2024)
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.”
(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.
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.