Tag Archives: ICJ

Latest Israel-Hamas war news: ICJ to hold hearings on Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory – The Washington Post

  1. Latest Israel-Hamas war news: ICJ to hold hearings on Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory The Washington Post
  2. THE HAGUE – The International Court of Justice (ICJ) holds public hearings in the advisory proceedings – State of Palestine Welcome to the United Nations
  3. ‘Our people are here to stay:’ World Court hears arguments over Israeli occupation of Palestinian-claimed land CNN
  4. Israel-Hamas War: Live Updates The New York Times
  5. ICJ on Israeli occupation of Palestine live: Hearings begin | Israel War on Gaza News Al Jazeera English

Read original article here

ICJ Delivers Preliminary Objections Judgment in the Ukraine v. Russia Genocide Case, Ukraine Loses on the Most Important Aspects – EJIL: Talk!

  1. ICJ Delivers Preliminary Objections Judgment in the Ukraine v. Russia Genocide Case, Ukraine Loses on the Most Important Aspects EJIL: Talk!
  2. THE HAGUE – The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivers its Judgment on the preliminary objections raised by the Russian Federation in the case Ukraine v. Russian Federation; 32 States intervening United Nations
  3. Top UN court says it has jurisdiction in Ukraine genocide case The Hill
  4. Russia-Ukraine war at a glance: what we know on day 709 The Guardian
  5. Top UN court says genocide case brought by Ukraine against Russia can move forward CNN

Read original article here

South Africa files case at ICJ accusing Israel of ‘genocidal acts’ in Gaza – Al Jazeera English

  1. South Africa files case at ICJ accusing Israel of ‘genocidal acts’ in Gaza Al Jazeera English
  2. South Africa files genocide case against Israel at International Court of Justice over Gaza war CNN
  3. Israel-Gaza war live: Israel rejects genocide case as ‘baseless’; UN humanitarian chief ‘strongly condemns’ aid convoy attack The Guardian
  4. ‘Blood libel’: Israel slams South Africa for filing ICJ genocide motion over Gaza war The Times of Israel
  5. South Africa files genocide case against Israel at World Court Reuters

Read original article here

THE HAGUE – The International Court of Justice (ICJ) holds public hearings on the preliminary objections raised by the Russian Federation in the case Ukraine v. Russian Federation – first round of oral argument of the Russian Federation – UN Web TV

  1. THE HAGUE – The International Court of Justice (ICJ) holds public hearings on the preliminary objections raised by the Russian Federation in the case Ukraine v. Russian Federation – first round of oral argument of the Russian Federation UN Web TV
  2. World Court to hear Russian objections to Ukraine genocide case Reuters
  3. Ukraine and its allies battle Russian bid to have genocide case tossed out of the UN’s top court The Associated Press
  4. Ukraine and its allies battle Russian bid to have genocide case tossed out of the UN’s top court The Hill
  5. Ukraine vs. Russia: Genocide proceedings at UN’s top court DW (English)
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read original article here

Netanyahu says Israel not bound by ‘despicable’ U.N. vote

RAMALLAH, West Bank, Dec 31 (Reuters) – Israel condemned and the Palestinians welcomed on Saturday a United Nations General Assembly vote asking the International Court of Justice to provide an opinion on legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.

The Friday vote presents a challenge for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who this week took office at the head of a government which has set settlement expansion as a priority and which includes parties who want to annex West Bank land on which they are built.

“The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land nor occupiers in our eternal capital Jerusalem and no U.N. resolution can distort that historical truth,” Netanyahu said in a video message, adding that Israel was not bound by the “despicable decision.”

Along with Gaza and East Jerusalem, the Palestinians seek the occupied West Bank for a state. Most countries consider Israel’s settlements there illegal, a view Israel disputes citing historical and Biblical ties to the land.

The Hague-based International Court of Justice (ICJ) also known as the World Court, is the top U.N. court dealing with disputes between states. Its rulings are binding, though the ICJ has no power to enforce them.

The U.N. General Assembly asked the ICJ to give an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s “occupation, settlement and annexation … including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem.”

Members of Netanyahu’s new government have pledged to bolster settlements with development plans, budgets and authorisation of dozens of outposts built without permits.

The cabinet includes newly created posts and restructured roles that grant some of those powers to pro-settler coalition partners, who ultimately aim to extend Israeli sovereignty to the West Bank.

Netanyahu, however, has given no indication of any imminent steps to annex the settlements, a move that would likely shake up its relations with Western and Arab allies alike.

The Palestinians welcomed the U.N. vote in which 87 members voted in favour of adopting the request; Israel, the United States and 24 other members voted against; and 53 abstained.

“The time has come for Israel to be a state subject to law, and to be held accountable for its ongoing crimes against our people,” said Nabil Abu Rudeineh, spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose Palestinian Authority has limited self-rule in the West Bank.

Basem Naim, an official with Hamas, the Islamist militant group that controls Gaza, said it was “an important step toward confining and isolating the state of occupation (Israel).”

Writing by Maayan Lubell; Editing by Kim Coghill and Frances Kerry

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

World Court says it has jurisdiction, Myanmar genocide case to proceed

  • Court rules case brought by Gambia can proceed
  • Any full hearing could take years
  • Myanmar denies genocide

THE HAGUE, July 22 (Reuters) – The World Court on Friday rejected Myanmar’s objections to a genocide case over its treatment of the Muslim Rohingya minority, paving the way for the case to be heard in full.

Myanmar, now ruled by a military junta that seized power in 2021, had argued that Gambia, which brought the suit, had no standing to do so at the top U.N. court, formally known as the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

But presiding Judge Joan Donoghue said all states that had signed the 1948 Genocide Convention could and must act to prevent genocide, and the court had jurisdiction in the case.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

“Gambia, as a state party to the genocide convention, has standing,” she said, reading a summary of the 13-judge panel’s ruling.

The court will now proceed to hearing the merits of the case, a process that will take years.

Gambia took up the Rohingya’s cause in 2019, backed by the 57-nation Organisation for Islamic Cooperation, in a suit aiming to hold Myanmar accountable and prevent further bloodshed.

Gambia Justice Minister Dawda Jallow said outside the courtroom he was “very happy” with the decision and was confident the suit would prevail.

Gambia became involved after his predecessor, Abubacarr Tambadou, a former prosecutor at the U.N. Rwanda tribunal, visited a refugee camp in Bangladesh and said that the stories he heard evoked memories of the genocide in Rwanda.

A representative for Myanmar said that the state would do its “utmost” to protect the country’s “national interest” in further proceedings.

Protesters outside the court’s gates hoisted a red banner with the text “Free Burma” and yelled at cars carrying the junta’s representatives leaving the building after the decision.

A U.N. fact-finding mission concluded that a 2017 military campaign by Myanmar that drove 730,000 Rohingya into neighbouring Bangladesh had included “genocidal acts”.

Myanmar has denied genocide, rejecting the U.N. findings as “biased and flawed”. It says its crackdown was aimed at Rohingya rebels who had carried out attacks.

While the Hague court’s decisions are binding and countries generally follow them, it has no way of enforcing them.

In a 2020 provisional decision it ordered Myanmar to protect the Rohingya from harm, a legal victory that established their right under international law as a protected minority.

However Rohingya groups and rights activists say there has been no meaningful attempt to end their systemic persecution.

Rohingya are still denied citizenship and freedom of movement in Myanmar. Tens of thousands have now been confined to squalid displacement camps for a decade.

Bangladesh’s foreign ministry welcomed the judgment in a statement.

“For the victims living in the camps in Bangladesh as well as in Myanmar, they see the hope that justice will be delivered to them and that the perpetrators in the Myanmar military will be brought to accountability,” said Ambia Parveen of the European Rohingya Council outside the court.

The junta has imprisoned democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who defended Myanmar personally in 2019 hearings in The Hague.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Toby Sterling, and Poppy McPherson in Bangkok; Editing by Peter Graff and Alison Williams

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Ukraine prosecutor seeks life sentence for Russian soldier in war crimes trial

KYIV, May 19 (Reuters) – A Ukrainian state prosecutor asked a court on Thursday to sentence a Russian soldier to life in prison for killing an unarmed civilian in the first war crimes trial arising from Russia’s Feb. 24 invasion.

Vadim Shishimarin, a 21-year-old Russian tank commander, asked widow Kateryna Shelipova to forgive him for the murder of her husband, Oleksandr, in the northeast Ukrainian village of Chupakhivka on Feb. 28.

“I acknowledge my blame … I ask you to forgive me,” he told Shelipova at the hearing on Thursday attended by Reuters.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

He pleaded guilty to the murder on Wednesday. read more

Oleksandr Shelipov’s killing was one of what Ukraine and Western nations say is a far wider picture: Ukraine has accused Russia of atrocities and brutality against civilians during the invasion and said it has identified more than 10,000 possible war crimes. Russia has denied targeting civilians or involvement in war crimes.

At Thursday’s court hearing, Shishimarin cut a forlorn spectacle in a glass booth for defendants – boyish, dressed in a tracksuit and with his shaven head lowered.

The Kremlin has said it has no information about the trial and that the absence of a diplomatic mission in Ukraine limits its ability to provide assistance.

The widow told the court that on the day her husband was killed, she had heard distant shots fired from their yard and that she had called out to her husband.

“I ran over to my husband, he was already dead. Shot in the head. I screamed, I screamed so much,” she said. She looked distraught and her voice trembled with emotion.

Shelipova told the court she would not object if Shishimarin was released to Russia as part of a prisoner swap to get “our boys” out of the port city of Mariupol, a reference to hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers who have given themselves up to Russia. read more

The trial takes place as much of Ukraine is gripped by the fate of its soldiers who it hopes Russia will hand over as part of an exchange. In Russia, some senior lawmakers have called for the Azov Regiment fighters to be put on trial.

Shelipova said her husband had been unarmed and was dressed in civilian clothes. They had a 27-year-old son and two grandchildren together, she added.

Ukrainian state prosecutors have said Shishimarin fired several shots with an assault rifle at a civilian’s head from a car after being ordered to do so. read more

Asked if he had been obliged to follow an order that amounted to a war crime, Shishimarin said “no”.

“I fired a short burst, three or four bullets,” he told the court.

“I am from Irkutsk Oblast (a region in Siberia), I have two brothers and two sisters … I am the eldest,” he said.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Max Hunder;
Writing by Tom Balmforth;
Editing by Alexandra Hudson, Nick Macfie and Frances Kerry

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

At U.N., Amal Clooney pushes for Ukraine war crimes justice

UNITED NATIONS, April 27 (Reuters) – Human rights lawyer Amal Clooney urged countries at the United Nations on Wednesday to focus on international justice for war crimes in Ukraine so evidence does not sit in storage – as it has done for victims of Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria.

“Ukraine is, today, a slaughterhouse. Right in the heart of Europe,” Clooney told an informal U.N. Security Council meeting on accountability in Ukraine, organized by France and Albania.

Clooney recalled a 2017 Security Council vote to approve a measure she helped lobby for – the creation of a U.N. team to collect, preserve and store evidence of possible international crimes committed by Islamic State in Iraq. It was the same year her son and daughter with U.S. actor George Clooney were born.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

“My children are now almost 5, and so far most of the evidence collected by the U.N. is in storage – because there is no international court to put ISIS on trial,” she said.

The International Criminal Court (ICC), which handles war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and crimes of aggression, has no jurisdiction because Iraq and Syria are not members.

Clooney is part of an international legal task force advising Ukraine on securing accountability for Ukrainian victims in national jurisdictions and working with the Hague-based ICC.

ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan opened an investigation into Ukraine a week after Russia’s Feb. 24 invasion. read more

“This is a time when we need to mobilize the law and send it into battle. Not on the side of Ukraine against the Russian Federation, or on the side of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, but on the side of humanity,” Khan told the U.N. meeting.

Russian diplomat Sergey Leonidchenko described the ICC as a “political instrument.” He accused the United States and Britain of hypocrisy for supporting the ICC inquiry in Ukraine after doing “everything imaginable to shield their own military.”

Moscow describes its Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine as a “special military operation” and denies targeting civilians.

Ukrainian Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova’s office has told Reuters it is preparing war crimes charges against at least seven Russian military personnel. read more

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Michelle Nichols; editing by Richard Pullin

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

World Court sides mostly with Somalia in border dispute with Kenya

THE HAGUE, Oct 12 (Reuters) – The top U.N. top court ruled on Tuesday largely in favour of Somalia in its dispute with Kenya, setting a sea boundary in part of the Indian Ocean believed to be rich in oil and gas.

Somalia said the ruling was a result of “sacrifice and struggle” by the Horn of Africa country.

A new boundary drawn by the International Court of Justice was closest to a line proposed by Somalia, attributing to it several offshore oil blocks claimed by Kenya.

The revised maritime border along the exclusive economic zones for the continental shelves of Somalia and Kenya “achieves and equitable solution”, Judge Joan Donoghue said.

Kenya, which did secure some territory beyond the Somali claim, had failed to prove there was an established sea boundary between the states, which would have given it a greater portion of the disputed territory, the court found.

“I thank Allah for … for the fruit of the long struggle made by the Somalis in preventing Kenya’s desire to claim ownership of part of Somalia’s sea,” Somalia’s President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed said in a broadcast on his office’s Facebook page.

The ruling came after Nairobi last week said it had revoked recognition of the court’s jurisdiction. No one for Kenya was officially present either in court or via video link.

The court has said Kenya’s withdrawal is not retroactive and does not affect Tuesday’s judgement.

Somalia filed the case in 2014 at the United Nations’ highest court dealing with disputes between states.

The case at the ICJ, also known as the World Court, concerned a boundary dispute over more than 100,000 sq km (nearly 40,000 sq miles) of sea floor claimed by both countries.

Reporting by Stephanie van den Berg, Additional reporting by Abdi Sheikh in Mogadishu and George Obulutsa in Nairobi
Editing by Anthony Deutsch, Peter Graff, Chizu Nomiyama, Mark Heinrich and Giles Elgood

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here