←back to thread

517 points xbar | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.479s | source
Show context
ajb ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
ajb ◴[] No.39148379[source]
Don't quite understand that? Aharon Barak was chief justice, but retired in 2006 and is 87 years old.
replies(1): >>39148511 #
1. yosefk ◴[] No.39148511[source]
Most of the judiciary are his loyalists. An example of his ongoing influence is the ridiculous legal doctrine invented just this year where the Israeli declaration of independence was retroactively declared to be the supreme law of the land, akin to a "meta-constitution"; his opinion on the matter was published after many months of campaigns where people would declare their "allegiance to the declaration of independence."
replies(1): >>39148663 #
2. YZF ◴[] No.39148663[source]
I feel like this is an over-simplification that's not going to be well understood by people not familiar with Israel's judicial history and systems.

He has some influence but I don't think "loyalists" (or the other terminology used in your earlier comment) is that accurate. The supreme court justices today have a range of opinions and are largely independent and interpret law (and some other universal principles, like human rights, is really what Barak brought to the table).

The interesting bit to me here is this signals that if those cases were brought in front of Israel's supreme court the outcome would likely be similar to the ICJ (except Israel's supreme court's rulings must be followed, it's not optional or requires security council approval). I think that was partly the intent in sending Barak and really the main argument that people that oppose the government initiatives to restrict the Israeli Supreme Court have. And so there's really no need to take Israel to the ICJ since its independent supreme court would e.g. enforce the same standards anyways.