←back to thread

ICJ orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza, stops short of ordering ceasefire

(apnews.com)
517 points xbar | 4 comments | 26 Jan 24 14:35 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ajb ◴[26 Jan 24 18:36 UTC] No.39146163[source]▶
The actual rulings can be found at https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...

and a summary is: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...

Dissents etc can be found in the case page: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192 - in particular the opinion of Judge Aharon Barak, the Israeli ad-hoc Judge (a peculiarity of the ICJ is that each side gets to add a judge, but it doesn't have much effect since there are 17 other judges). But interestingly Judge Barak ruled against Israel in the case of two measures, enforcement against Incitement and ensuring humanitarian aid.

I believe it's also available in French, for those more familiar with that language.

replies(7): >>39146237 #>>39146925 #>>39147067 #>>39148425 #>>39148514 #>>39150104 #>>39150978 #
shmatt ◴[26 Jan 24 19:25 UTC] No.39146925[source]▶
Barak is no fan of the current Israeli government. And they often attacked him publicly and organized demonstrations around his home. They truly sent the best international law expert the country has to offer
replies(2): >>39148316 #>>39148775 #
yosefk ◴[26 Jan 24 21:03 UTC] No.39148316[source]▶
Not exactly. They sent the guy who controls the local judiciary because not doing so would be impossible due to his immense political power. The Israeli judiciary is unique in nominating itself and having given itself the power to cancel any law or demand any changes to laws/policy on any arbitrary basis; since this state of affairs is backed up by a sufficient number of powerful institutions, it is effectively impossible to challenge.

Barak ruling to resupply the enemy (it is widely documented that "humanitarian aid" goes first and foremost to Hamas) in an international court is entirely consistent with his lifelong tendency to gradually reduce Israeli independence and voters' impact on policy and to increase Israeli compliance to the policy of outside parties, first and foremost the US. (Resupplying the enemy was required by the US from the start. It is interesting to see other examples where civilians are prevented by the international community to leave the area of hostilities and instead they are supposed to be provided with resources in this area where the monopoly on the use of force belongs to one of the sides in the conflict.)

While the exact requirements placed on Israel by larger powers are somewhat unique, having highly influential people in the country effectively work in the interest of larger powers is a common condition for smaller powers. In this Barak is similar to many other high-profile people and organizations in many other countries enjoying limited sovereignty at best.

replies(4): >>39148379 #>>39148399 #>>39148477 #>>39148541 #
1. tguvot ◴[26 Jan 24 21:13 UTC] No.39148477[source]▶
> The Israeli judiciary is unique in nominating itself

this is at most lie and at least misconception. Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the President of Israel, from names submitted by the Judicial Selection Committee, which is composed of nine members: three Supreme Court Judges (including the President of the Supreme Court), two cabinet ministers (one of them being the Minister of Justice), two Knesset members, and two representatives of the Israel Bar Association. Appointing Supreme Court Judges requires a majority of 7 of the 9 committee members, or two less than the number present at the meeting.

replies(1): >>39148551 #
2. yosefk ◴[26 Jan 24 21:19 UTC] No.39148551[source]▶
In practice, the 3 Supreme Court Judges, the two representatives of the Israel Bar Association, and the 1 Knesset member "traditionally" representing one of the two major political camps [the one aligned with most Supreme Court Judges] always vote together, so most of the judiciary is appointed according to the wishes of the Supreme Court Judges. The veto on appointing Supreme Court Judges adds a modicum of balance, but given that the country can be set on fire at will by the Supreme Court like we've seen in 2023, I don't believe that this veto is that effective at changing appointments (if an appointee is declared illegitimate by the Supreme Court, the country will be paralyzed by protests; and more prosaically, you promote to the highest court from lower courts and everyone appointed to these was appointed by a simple majority without the 7-out-of-9 veto.)

The idea that 5 out 9 people nominating judges aren't elected, directly or indirectly, is AFAIK a fairly unique Israeli invention. This is taught in schools as a good thing because there's "a majority of professionals rather than politicians." I presume that this idea is so effective and consistent with the principles of democracy that it should also work for nominating governments and lawmakers.

replies(2): >>39148657 #>>39149797 #
3. jdietrich ◴[26 Jan 24 22:41 UTC] No.39149797[source]▶
>The idea that 5 out 9 people nominating judges aren't elected, directly or indirectly, is AFAIK a fairly unique Israeli invention.

Judges in England and Wales (including supreme court judges) are selected entirely by unelected officials; The government is explicitly prohibited from interfering with their decision. Given the influential nature of English law, I would be very surprised if this was unique.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Appointments_Commissi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_o...

replies(1): >>39152122 #
4. turquoisevar ◴[27 Jan 24 03:18 UTC] No.39152122{3}[source]▶
Another example:

In the Netherlands the Dutch Supreme Court provides parliament with a shortlist of 6 people. The Dutch parliament then makes a short list of 3 people based on that list. Traditionally the first three people on the 6 person list by the Dutch Supreme Court.

This 3 person list is then offered to the Dutch government who then appointments one of them, traditionally the first one on the list, as a Supreme Court judge.

In the entire history only once did the Dutch parliament deviate from the Supreme Court’s 6 person shortlist and only once did the Dutch government deviate from the parliament’s 3 person shortlist.

So in practice it’s the Supreme Court who chooses who should join them, none of the judges are elected officials.

Lower court judges aren’t elected either, like say, in the US.

Neither are prosecutors for that matter.

In general these are all merit based appointments, not unlike your average job application, just with more ceremony.