“Speaking the Law, Plausibly: The International Court of Justice on Gaza”
https://www.ejiltalk.org/speaking-the-law-plausibly-the-international-court-of-justice-on-gaza/
Discussion
"The strength of the decision is that it does what courts often do best – speak the law, establish the facts – even though this is not what provisional measures are normally about.
The decision generates unity about the finding of a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza – it is primarily expressive, speaking to world public opinion in the hope to foster common understandings.
In contrast, the actual provisional measures remain vague – the Court does less to specify what would need to be done to prevent irreparable harm and to shape and channel political discourses in this respect. This may be because of internal dynamics or for fear of being disobeyed.
In the end, the Court speaks truth to power, but it does so rather timidly."
No ceasefire though 🤐
yes they're scared of something it seems 🤔
icj b liek could you guys please tone the partial(?) genocide down a bit 🥺👉👈
why mouth shut emoji
The status quo is grim. The very idea that the rights of individuals (including the very basic right to life) are outweighed by political considerations and attempts to say the law in way that doesn’t cause inconvenience to the perpetrator and its allies, poisons the heart.
The current way in which international law is arranged is deeply disturbing not only because of the ineffectiveness of its institutional arrangements when great powers interests are at stake, but also in the way it discriminated between individuals when their rights are at stake (e.g, Ukraine- Gaza). We need a better system that doesn’t treat (certain) humans as numbers/ mass/ statistics, or maybe we just deserve this system.
just seeing this, ignore last question as u are already answering here
I wouldn’t say they are scared, I would rather say that the system itself is designed to (dys)function in such way.
was just a feelings i had since they were so timid ab it
why would it be designed so that a (partial) genocide, which is super worrying and major cause for concern and should ring alarm bells, be timidly asked to ceasefire?
The situation could have been less apocalyptic if the UNSC was able to function effectively when an imminent threat to Intl peace and security is established, however with the right to Veto we all know that’s not possible as long as the interest of one of the veto holder is at stake. Referring the issue to the ICJ is already so complicated, kudos to SA that they manage to overcome the institutional hurdle, but even if the ICJ’s jurisdiction is established, and the formal requirements are fulfilled, there is no way to enforce the ICJ’s “supposedly binding” order without an order from the UNSC or the state’s consent-both of which are not possible in the case of Gaza. Besides this internal contradictions/indeterminacy of the law, what blows the mind is that some rogue states are more likely to act in full impunity than others in a system that is supposedly based on “sovereign equality”. “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”.