ICJ

Prof. Cohen and Prof. Shany discuss three possible rationales for the ICJ's rejection of Israel’s security concerns and offer a few final observations on the appropriate balance that should hold between security considerations and continued presence in occupied territories.

The ICJ Advisory Opinion on Israel's policies in the territories of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) are illegal but was more divided on other salient factual and legal findings.

The issuance of additional interim orders in the genocide proceedings underway at the ICJ limits Israel’s operational wiggle room in Rafah, but leaves it with some flexibility in the interpretation and implementation of the new orders.

The International Court of Justice in The Hague (ICJ) issued new temporary orders against Israel this week. Justice Barak’s dissenting opinion would seem to offer an important lesson for the future. Professional, focused, and well-founded legal criticism—as opposed to the very different means that are currently being widely discussed and pursued—is likely the best way to deal with the ICJ.

In its order on provisional measures, the Court appeared to engage in transactional justice. It used harsh rhetoric to describe the catastrophic situation in the Gaza Strip while minimizing the impact of the order by adopting ambiguous language on the contents and scope of the plausibility test.

While the ICJ decision briefly mentions the immediate context of the lawsuit, namely the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, Judge Barak directs them to the full picture that they did not address. He writes about the events of October 7 as Israelis know them to be true.

While neither Israel nor South Africa achieved a complete win, one thing is clear: the story of Israel before the ICJ is only beginning

Prof. Amichai Cohen, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute and an expert in international law, made the following comments on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision today regarding provisional measures in the case of South Africa v. Israel on the Application of the Genocide Convention.

On Friday, January 26, the International Court of Justice issued its Opinion granting provisional measures in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. Joining the Just Security Podcast to discuss the Court’s Opinion and its implications are law professors Adil Haque, Oona Hathaway, and IDI's Yuval Shany.

Beyond the fact that the Torah does not make the call to commit genocide, the Tanach and its interpretations in fact obligate the Jewish people to abide by the laws of war. To a large extent, humanity's earliest laws of war can be found in the Bible. 

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague held public hearings in the case against Israel for alleged violations of the Genocide Convention. In this essay we address three aspects of the case: the ways the parties framed the events, the request to suspend Israeli military operations, and the conditions for issuing provisional measures. 

One of the claims brought forth in the Application against Israel that it is committing genocide against the Palestinians is that many senior members of the government made references to the biblical precept to wipe out the memory of the ancient Amaleks. This is my professional opinion on the meaning of these locutions and the use made of them in the Application. 

On January 11th, the court will begin by hearing South Africa’s oral argument, with Israel presenting its counter argument on January 12th.

What does the international law state and what are the possible implications of these proceedings on the ongoing war and Israel’s international standing? We’ve compiled a shortlist of important information you should have.

The ICJ is hearing allegations that Israel has violated the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. What is the ICJ? How is the government responding? What are the implications for the war against Hamas and Israel’s international standing?
All the answers in a special IDI explainer.

The recent application by South Africa to the International Court of Justice brought against Israel under the Genocide Convention illuminates how international law and international institutions can be employed to address the Israel-Hamas war.