International Court of Justice (UN)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Urged to Re-examine Israel Support After Lawsuit Dismissed

      by

      A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit by Palestinian Americans who sought to force the White House to withdraw support for Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, as was widely expected based on constitutional precedent that only the political branches of U.S. government could determine foreign policy.But, unexpectedly, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White indicated that he would have preferred to have issued the injunction were he not limited by the Constitution, and he implored the Biden administration to “examine the results of their unflagging support” of Israel.The determination came five days after a hearing in Oakland, Calif., in which Judge White allowed the head of a humanitarian group, a medical intern and three Palestinian Americans with relatives in Gaza to tell the court that their loved ones were being slaughtered. They alleged that the U.S. government has underwritten a genocide by backing Israel’s military response to the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas.“President Biden could, with one phone call, put an end to this,” Laila el-Haddad, a Palestinian activist and author living in Maryland, told the judge. She said that Israeli attacks had killed at least 88 members of her extended family in Gaza. “My family is being killed on my dime.”Judge White, who last week had called the testimony “gut-wrenching,” wrote that the evidence and testimony “indicate that the ongoing military siege in Gaza is intended to eradicate a whole people.”But, he added, “there are rare cases in which the preferred outcome is inaccessible to the court.”This, he wrote, was such a case: “It is every individual’s obligation to confront the current siege in Gaza, but it is also this Court’s obligation to remain within the metes and bounds of its jurisdictional scope.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      The International Court of Justice’s Ruling on Israel Tests International Law

      by

      Over the past month, we’ve watched an astonishing, high-stakes global drama play out in The Hague. A group of countries from the poorer, less powerful bloc some call the Global South, led by South Africa, dragged the government of Israel and by extension its rich, powerful allies into the top court of that order, and accused Israel of prosecuting a brutal war in Gaza that is “genocidal in character.”The responses to this presentation from the leading nations of the Western rules-based order were quick and blunt.“Completely unjustified and wrong,” said a statement from Rishi Sunak, Britain’s prime minister.“Meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever,” said John Kirby, spokesman for the United States National Security Council.“The accusation has no basis in fact,” a German government spokesman said, adding that Germany opposed the “political instrumentalization” of the genocide statute.But on Friday, that court had its say, issuing a sober and careful provisional ruling that doubled as a rebuke to those dismissals. In granting provisional measures, the court affirmed that some of South Africa’s allegations were plausible, and called on Israel to take immediate steps to protect civilians, increase the amount of humanitarian aid and punish officials who engaged in violent and incendiary speech. The court stopped short of calling for a cease-fire, but it granted South Africa’s request for provisional measures to prevent further civilian death. For the most part, the court ruled in favor of the Global South. Accusing the state created in the aftermath of the slaughter that required the coinage of the term genocide is a serious step. Scholars of genocide have raised alarms about statements from Israeli leaders and its conduct in the war while stopping short of calling the killing genocide. Some have welcomed South Africa’s application as a necessary step to preventing genocide.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 50 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Netanyahu’s Cynical Political Game

      by

      It has become clear that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is not the leader for this critical moment.The devastation of Gaza is at intolerable levels and getting worse; the Israeli government is under intense pressure from the families of hostages to do far more to free them before they perish; the United States and Arab states, anxious to avoid a regional war, are trying to mediate an end to the conflict. But Mr. Netanyahu blocks the way.As a majority of Israelis and their allies can see, Mr. Netanyahu and his insistence on “total victory” over Hamas, with no consideration of the consequences or costs, have become a part of the problem. He is playing a cynical game, using the war to serve his political ends, and Israelis, most of whom support the effort to wipe out Hamas, are getting tired of it.He has even managed to alienate Israel’s most important ally. Despite President Biden’s display of total support for Israel — and Mr. Netanyahu — after the atrocious attack by Hamas on Oct. 7, including the president’s personal visit to the Jewish state, Mr. Netanyahu has deliberately and publicly defied American advice as contrary to Israel’s “vital interests.” A particularly contentious conversation in late December ended with Mr. Biden angrily declaring, “This conversation is over.” It was a month before Mr. Biden phoned again.The problem is not necessarily Mr. Netanyahu’s hawkish stance, which is shared by many Israelis enraged by the barbaric Hamas raid. It is Mr. Netanyahu’s confusion of leadership with political survival, with the widespread perception that he opposes any negotiated settlement, and any American advice or mediation, not because he really believes they run counter to Israelis’ interests, as he claims, but because appearing to stand up to “American pressure,” and portraying the Gaza war as a far broader conflict about a Palestinian state and Iran, serves his political ends.That, at least, appears to be what a majority of Israelis believe, even those who might otherwise align with the prime minister’s insistence on trying to fully eradicate Hamas. According to a political poll taken in late December, only 15 percent of Israelis wanted him to stay in office after the war ended.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      U.N. Court Orders Israel to Prevent Genocide, but Does Not Demand Stop to War

      by

      The top United Nations court in The Hague did not rule on whether Israel was committing genocide in Gaza, the accusation that South Africa brought before the court.The International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take actions to prevent genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.Remko De Waal/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe United Nations’ highest court said on Friday that Israel must take action to prevent acts of genocide by its forces in the Gaza Strip, adding to the international pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to reduce death and destruction in the battered Palestinian enclave.But the court did not rule on whether Israel was committing genocide, and it did not call on Israel to stop its military campaign to crush Hamas, as South Africa, which brought the case, had requested.While the ruling had elements that each side could embrace, the court allowed the case charging Israel with genocide to proceed, which will likely keep the country under international scrutiny for years to come.“The court is acutely aware of the extent of the human tragedy that is unfolding in the region, and is deeply concerned about the continuing loss of life and human suffering,” Joan E. Donoghue, the president of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, said as she announced the interim ruling. The decision also ordered the delivery of more humanitarian aid to Palestinians, and called for the release of hostages held by armed groups in Gaza.The South Africans who argued the case this month have equated the oppression they faced under apartheid with the plight of Palestinians.The genocide accusation is acutely sensitive for Israel, which was founded in 1948 in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Many Israelis argue that it is Hamas that should face charges of genocide after its attack on Oct. 7, when about 1,200 people were killed in Israel and about 240 were taken captive, according to Israeli officials.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Maduro activa referéndum sobre el Esequibo

      by

      El presidente venezolano realizará un referendo para reclamar la soberanía sobre el Esequibo, una importante franja rica en petróleo de Guyana.El presidente de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, se encuentra ante un dilema político. Está bajo la presión de Estados Unidos para que celebre elecciones libres y justas tras años de gobierno autoritario o se enfrente al restablecimiento de sanciones económicas agobiantes. Sin embargo, los analistas afirman que es poco probable que renuncie al poder y que es muy posible que pierda en unas elecciones confiables.Ahora, Maduro ha reavivado una disputa territorial con un país vecino mucho más pequeño. Es una maniobra que parece estar motivada, al menos en parte, por un deseo de desviar la atención de sus problemas políticos internos a través del impulso del fervor nacionalista.Maduro alega que la región rica en petróleo del Esequibo en Guyana, un país con una población estimada de 800.000 habitantes, forma parte de Venezuela, una nación de aproximadamente 28 millones de personas, y realizará un referendo consultivo no vinculante este domingo para preguntarle a los votantes si apoyan la posición del gobierno.El argumento de Maduro se basa en lo que muchos venezolanos consideran un acuerdo ilegítimo que data del siglo XIX que le otorgó a Guyana la región del Esequibo.Los expertos afirmaron que aunque la mayoría de los países han aceptado que el Esequibo pertenece a Guyana, y dado que el tema sigue siendo un asunto polémico para muchos venezolanos, es probable que el referéndum sea aprobado.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Maduro’s Vote to Annex Territory From Guyana Is Seen as a Diversion

      by

      The Venezuelan president is holding a referendum to claim sovereignty over Essequibo, a large oil-rich swath of neighboring Guyana.Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, finds himself in a political bind. He is under pressure from the United States to hold free and fair elections after years of authoritarian rule or face a reinstatement of crippling economic sanctions. But analysts say he is unlikely to give up power and would most likely lose in a credible election.Now, Mr. Maduro has reignited a border dispute with a much smaller neighboring country in a move that seems driven, at least in part, by a desire to divert attention from his political troubles at home by stoking nationalist fervor.Mr. Maduro claims that the vast, oil-rich Essequibo region of Guyana, a country of about 800,000, is part of Venezuela, a nation of roughly 28 million people, and is holding a nonbinding referendum on Sunday asking voters whether they support the government’s position.Mr. Maduro’s argument is based on what many Venezuelans consider an illegitimate agreement dating to the 19th century that gave the Essequibo region to Guyana.Although most countries have accepted that Essequibo belongs to Guyana, the issue remains a point of contention for many Venezuelans, and the referendum is likely to be approved, experts said.President Irfaan Ali of Guyana has said that “Essequibo is ours, every square inch of it,” and has pledged to defend it.For Mr. Maduro, stoking a geopolitical crisis gives him a way to shift the domestic conversation at a moment when many Venezuelans are pressing for an election that could challenge his hold on power.“Maduro needs to wrap himself in the flag for electoral reasons, and obviously a territorial dispute with a neighbor is the perfect excuse,” said Phil Gunson, an analyst with the International Crisis Group who lives in Venezuela’s capital, Caracas.Analysts say that President Nicolás Maduro’s push for a referendum on Essequibo is aimed at stoking nationalist fervor to distract from his lack of popular support.Ariana Cubillos/Associated PressVenezuelan groups and activists opposing Mr. Maduro organized a primary in October without any official government support to choose a candidate to run in elections that are supposed to be held next year. More than 2.4 million Venezuelans cast ballots, a large number that suggests how engaged voters could be in a general election.But since then, the Maduro government has questioned the vote’s legitimacy and has taken legal aim at its organizers, raising concerns that Mr. Maduro will resist any serious challenge to his 10-year rule even as his country continues to suffer under international sanctions.Turnout on Sunday is expected to be large given that, among other factors, public sector employees are required to vote. A turnout larger than that for the opposition’s primary could bolster Mr. Maduro’s standing, analysts said.“It’s aimed at producing the impression that the government can mobilize the people in a way that the opposition can’t,” Mr. Gunson said.Essequibo, a region slightly larger than the state of Georgia, is a tropical jungle rich in oil, as well as minerals and timber. In recent years, many people have migrated there from Venezuela and Brazil to capitalize on the illegal mining industry.Bartica, Essequibo, is the gateway to what the Guyanese call “the interior,” a sparsely populated region of forest and savanna that is rich in natural resources. Meridith Kohut for The New York TimesGuyana has increased its police presence along the Venezuelan border, while Brazil has sent troops to the region. So far, Venezuela has not deployed any additional forces to the border. More