Mike Becker

Amidst the unending horrors of #Gaza, I spoke to
@davidmacredmond.bsky.social at @thejournal.ie about complicity in genocide & the distinct obligation of states to prevent genocide. There is no question that the 'serious risk' threshold (which triggers that duty) was met in Gaza a long time ago.

Perhaps so and it would be good for the ICJ to better explain the rationale for giving states so much time. But I do not think ICJ timelines are widely different or compare unfavourably to interstate cases at the ECtHR.

Yes, of course. The piece coincides with when Israel’s original deadline to file would have been. For those interested, here’s the relevant order: www.icj-cij.org/sites/defaul...

The decision to extend Israel’s deadline to file its pleading was actually made in April. Deadline extensions are not uncommon in ICJ cases.

Although I agree that the ICJ likely wants to avoid a situation where Israel might claim that it was subject to different treatment. Deadline extensions are common and the court followed suit here by giving Israel additional time when it requested more time.

One point to clarify about #SouthAfrica v #Israel at the #ICJ. The case is not really moving at a slower pace than other ICJ cases. It’s typical for ICJ cases to last 4-5 years & I don’t see any particular effort on the ICJ’s part to slow things down further due to nature of this case.

456. Before concluding, the Court recalls that it has been suggested that these advisory proceedings are unlike any that have previously come before the Court. At the same time, as the Court concluded earlier, the questions put to it by the General Assembly are legal ones (see paragraph 40), and the Court, as a court of law, can do no more than address the questions put to it through and within the limits of its judicial function; this is the Court’s assigned role in the international legal order. However, the questions posed by the General Assembly represent more than a legal problem: they concern an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet. International law, whose authority has been invoked by the General Assembly, has an important but ultimately limited role in resolving this problem. A complete solution to this daunting, and self-inflicted, problem requires the contribution of all fields of human knowledge, whether law, science, economics or any other. Above all, a lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom — at the individual, social and political levels — to change our habits, comforts and current way of life in order to secure a future for - 130 - ourselves and those who are yet to come. Through this Opinion, the Court participates in the activities of the United Nations and the international community represented in that body, with the hope that its conclusions will allow the law to inform and guide social and political action to address the ongoing climate crisis.

but don't forget: While the International Court of Justice answered legal questions, climate change and its consequences are everything but legal. International (environmental) law is a tool, not the answer. The most important passage of the advisory opinion are these non-legal statements below 👇

Such helpful clarification by Judge Cleveland: [T]he interpretation of investment instruments must be informed by States’ obligations in respect of climate change under international law, incl the stringent due diligence standard... www.icj-cij.org/sites/defaul...

1/ Some quick takes on the #ICJ #AdvisoryOpinion on #ClimateChange from a #futuregenerations and #intergenerationalequity perspective...

State acceptance matters a lot if you want the advisory opinion to be anything more than a piece of paper. A key consideration is how litigants at the state level will now seek to leverage various aspects of the ICJ opinion in domestic courts.

Climate activists will presumably be ecstatic about so much of what the ICJ has said today. This is a landmark decision, no doubt. But will this be a case of the ICJ over-shooting the mark (and undermining its own authority) by staking out positions that states are simply not ready to accept? 6/6

Today’s advisory opinion seems to have carefully avoided the ill-fated approach of the 1996 Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion, which arguably set back the cause of nuclear non-proliferation. The Court has not claimed that these are questions that the law simply does not or cannot address. 5/6

What will the UK, France, Germany, and the Netherlands say? How about India and China, OPEC states, and developing states that depend on fossil fuel exploitation for revenue? 4/6

This was always the risk in the #ICJ going beyond reaffirming broadly accepted principles. I expect the US will treat the Court’s pronouncements with scorn & ridicule. But how will other states with strong fossil fuel interests react, esp those that otherwise claim to take int'l law seriously? 3/6

And that is just the tip of the (melting?) iceberg. NGOs will celebrate. But will the ICJ’s big statements on attribution, responsibility, and reparation be politically acceptable to states? Or will states use the ICJ’s more sweeping statements to dismiss the advisory opinion out-of-hand? 2/6

The #ICJ advisory opinion covers a lot: customary status of climate change-related obligations, what due diligence means for adaptation/mitigation measures, the impact of sea-level rise on statehood, what types of fossil fuel-related activities might constitute an internationally wrongful act. 1/6

Extraordinary

#ICJ says fossil fuel production and consumption, granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses, or provision of fossil fuel subsidies may constitute an internationally wrongful act. This is getting into the zone of the ICJ going beyond what states will find credible or politically acceptable. Risky.

#ICJ weighing in on a very popular question of research among students and scholars (the 'deterritorialized state'). Let 1000 PhD theses bloom.

NGOs are using universal jurisdiction to seek accountability for alleged war crimes by Israeli soldiers. What is your objection? (I would not use the word 'hunt' in this context).

This is important guidance from the #ICJ about what due diligence requires in the context of the duty to cooperate on climate change adaptation/mitigation. Why is this important? Because it provides a potential blueprint for climate litigation in domestic courts (see Juliette's next few posts, too).

All the standard-of-review folks getting excited...

I'm a bit late to this today, follow Juliette for the details. ⬇️ My two big questions coming in: Will the #ICJ say anything useful, especially in terms of climate litigation in domestic courts? Will the #ICJ say anything that undermines or undercuts the goals of climate activists? #ClimateChange

All the more reason for the #ICJ to have taken a different approach to the IPCC reports last year. verfassungsblog.de/the-icj-meet...

President Trump’s Decision to Bomb Iran: From Bad to Worse "Whether the newly announced cease fire actually leads to an end to hostilities will not change the new reality: a comprehensive agreement is less likely now than it was before the bombing"

Trump's terrible decision to abandon #JCPOA in 2018 was and remains indefensible. A foreign policy blunder of epic proportions. Excellent piece by Gregory Craig that lays out Trump's continuing strategic idiocy re #Iran. www.justsecurity.org/115325/trump...

A Defining Test for Strasbourg. Legal and Procedural Dilemmas of Interstate Withdrawal Before the European Court of Human Rights - Strasbourg Observers by Igor Mirzakhanyan In an unprecedented development before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), both Armenia and Azerbaijan have expressed their intention to withdraw all pending interstate ap...

I missed the news in March that #Armenia and #Azerbaijan peace negotiations may be heading towards the withdrawal of all pending cases between the two states at the #ICJ and #ECtHR. Some interesting reflections on the potential dilemma for the ECtHR here: strasbourgobservers.com/2025/06/06/a...

This is something I also discuss in my analysis of the #Gaza crisis and the #SouthAfrica v #Israel case in the next issue of the Melbourne Journal of International Law (see pp 52-54), available here: law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/asset....

Genocidal Intent in Armed Conflict: Unpacking the ICJ’s “Only Reasonable Inference” Standard [Natasha Yvonne Barigye is an International Justice Fellow at Amnesty International and a lawyer specialising in international criminal law. Melissa Hendrickse is a Legal Advisor at Amnesty Interna…

Here's a highly topical contribution at @opiniojuris.bsky.social on the relevant standard at the #ICJ when it comes to inferring genocidal intent from indirect evidence and the contested meaning of the 'only reasonable inference test'. opiniojuris.org/2025/05/26/g...

Here's the #ICJ press release: www.icj-cij.org/sites/defaul...

The General Assembly and Security Council have elected Mahmoud Daifallah Hmoud (Jordan) to fill the #ICJ seat vacated by Nawaf Salam (Lebanon) in January. Hmoud will serve only until February 2027 (when Salam's term would have ended) unless reelected at the next triennial elections in November 2026.