International Law

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.

IDI experts Prof. Amichai Cohen and Prof. Yuval Shany analyze the legality of the September explosions targeting Hezbollah pagers and walkie-talkies through three legal frameworks: the right to use force, principles of distinction and proportionality, and the legality of employing these devices under laws regulating choice of weapons. 

A recent judgment of the Israeli Supreme Court held that conditions in a notorious detention center must comply with Israeli law.

The rule of law is a fundamental democratic principle, meaning that all governing bodies are subject to and must comply with the law. Despite the complexities inherent in ongoing war, this is true also of the IDF, and only decisive action against breaches of conduct may protect the rule of law in Israel and Jewish morality. 

An in-depth analysis of the advisory opinion of the ICJ on the legal consequences of Israel's policies and practices in the 'occupied Palestinian territory.'

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.

If properly structured, both a commission of inquiry and a preliminary examination by the Israeli police could arguably meet existing complementarity standards.

Article 18 to the ICC Statute requires the Prosecutor to notify the relevant States regarding a decision to open an investigation, providing those States the opportunity to request deferral of the investigation, because of the existence of a domestic investigation. The Prosecutor’s approach of not issuing new notifications new charges emerged weakens the ability of the Pre-Trial Chamber to monitor the implementation of the complementarity principle.

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 this article, we wish to identify and discuss here some potential problems we identify in the part of the request pertaining to Netanyahu and Gallant, at least as it was presented in the Prosecutor’s short announcement and by the expert report supporting it. 

From damage to scientific collaboration to cancellation of arms deals, arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials from the International Criminal Court in the Hague would pose a serious challenge to Israel

The US, the UK, France and other states have announced the imposition of economic sanctions on Israeli residents who are believed to be complicit in 'settler violence.' This document aims to outline the framework of international economic sanctions and contextualize the sanctions imposed on Israelis. 

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 current round of violence between Hamas and Israel has already given rise to many expressions of legal opinion. In this essay, we map some key assumptions and unpack how they can significantly affect ongoing legal debates and deliberations. 

Hamas’s horrendous October 7 attack on Israeli civilians and Israel’s anticipated response pose a unique challenge to scholars and practitioners of the Law of Armed Conflict or International Humanitarian Law (IHL), possibly a challenge they have never faced before.

The article explores the applicability of international human rights law (IHRL) to the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, 2023. Such an analysis is important to fill in gaps in IHL and to establish the jurisdiction of IHRL mechanisms over the violations committed. 

With international institutions once again a cornerstone of US foreign policy, Israel will have to adjust accordingly