Mike Becker

American carnage

Whether they’re fishermen or drug smugglers, it’s unlawful either way.

Israel’s genocide in Gaza: What happened to South Africa’s case at the ICJ? A verdict may not come for at least another two years - why the delay?

A few comments on the current situation regarding SA’s case against Israel, with colleagues @mikebecker.bsky.social & Juliette McIntyre.
#GazaGenocide

www.middleeasteye.net/explainers/i...

U.S. kills 3 in another strike on ‘narcoterrorists’ vessel, Trump says The strike marks the third such attack on boats alleged to be carrying illicit drugs this month. Experts have questioned the legality of the strikes.

Spoke with @washingtonpost.com about the absence of legal justification for the U.S. government’s premeditated killing of people aboard boats in the Caribbean.

“In essence, the President is asserting a license to kill outside the law.”

www.washingtonpost.com/national-sec...

In sum, the COI’s wide-ranging report makes several compelling points. Its conclusions align with those of many experts who have come to the view that the evidence can support a finding of genocide in Gaza. But I am also not sure that the argument has been fully made out here.

The COI’s recommendation that states meet their obligations by cooperating with the ICC makes sense. I am less persuaded by the suggestion (¶250) that states should intervene in South Africa v Israel at the ICJ case to fulfil those responsibilities.

In my view, the ICJ’s Jan 2024 provisional measures order already established a serious risk & triggered third-state duties. At a minimum, the COI report reaffirms the risk. For the UK or EU states debating the future of the EU-Israel trade association, perhaps this matters.

For third states, this report should clear away any remaining doubt that there is at least a ‘serious risk’ of genocide in Gaza. Per the ICJ, this requires states to take action to prevent genocide and avoid complicity, including by suspending military assistance to Israel.

In the pending cases relating to Gaza, the ICJ may need to do more than it has in some past cases to understand how this COI carried out its work and whether specific objections to the report’s analysis have merit or require follow-up.

The ICJ is more likely to credit a COI’s factual findings than its legal conclusions. How a COI applied the law may be of interest, but the ICJ will conduct its own legal analysis, not simply defer to the COI’s conclusions on commission of genocide or incitement.

But this & the COI’s other work will undoubtedly find its way into the record in South Africa v Israel at the ICJ. Parties often ask the ICJ to rely on third-party fact-finding reports, and the ICJ will do so in certain circumstances (as I discuss here: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...).

What impact will this report have? First, it is not a judgment. Moreover, the COI’s ‘reasonable grounds’ standard of proof differs from the ICJ’s ‘fully convincing’ standard or a criminal ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard (although it then adopts the ICJ standard, ¶220).

Israel has predictably attacked the report. But Israel refuses to engage with the COI that it now accuses of using false/incomplete information. At this point, the burden is on Israel to rebut the COI’s specific findings & conclusions (and it will have that chance at the ICJ).

Ultimately, the allegation that Israel is committing genocide is linked to the idea that systematic IHL violations can demonstrate genocidal intent. Did the COI do enough to make that case & connect the dots? South Africa will probably need to do more on this to persuade the ICJ.

As legal analysis, some parts of the report are more compelling than others. The COI might have put itself on stronger footing by addressing predictable counterarguments in greater detail (namely, Israel's claims about military necessity, compliance with IHL, and Hamas's role).

For the COI, this refusal to change course weighs heavily and points to genocidal intent. It might also suggest that if Israel had taken any number of ‘off-ramps’ at earlier points in the post-7 October conflict, genocidal intent would be harder to establish.

A recurring theme in the report is Israel’s refusal to alter its approach as the death toll has risen & the humanitarian crisis deepened (¶48). Instead, Israel has defied ICJ orders (¶195) and doubled down (¶181), even as its approach has failed to secure release of the hostages.

The COI’s account of Israel’s siege tactics, deprivation of food, destruction of hospitals, housing and infrastructure, and repeated forced displacements builds to the COI’s conclusion that Israel's actions cannot reasonably be explained by anything other than genocidal intent.

In my view, the most effective part of the report is where it sets out its findings on acts ‘deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction’ (¶¶ 83-147).

It also finds that Israel has failed to punish incitement for genocide, citing statements by Isaac Herzog, PM Netanyahu, and Yoav Gallant. The COI had previously found that Israel was committing war crimes & crimes against humanity in Gaza; here, the focus is genocide.

The 16 Sept 2025 report (here: www.ohchr.org/sites/defaul...) concludes that Israel is responsible for the ongoing commission of genocidal acts in Gaza. It considers that 4 of 5 categories of genocidal acts in Art II of the 1948 Convention have been committed with genocidal intent.

Some initial observations on yesterday’s report by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Palestine and Israel, led by former UN High Commission for Human Rights Navi Pillay. #Gaza

It was great to present (w/Cecily Rose) on dialogue between ICJ judges & counsel at the Sixth Scottish Conference on International Law at the University of Glasgow this week. Many thanks to @jamesgdevaney.bsky.social, @cjtams.bsky.social, @matinapapadaki.bsky.social for hosting a marvelous event.

Legal Issues Raised by a Lethal U.S. Military Attack in the Caribbean The Trump administration’s extraordinary lethal attack on this purported smuggling vessel raises significant potential legal issues.

1/ I worked at DoD. I literally cannot imagine lawyers coming up with a legal basis for lethal strike of suspected Venezuelan drug boat.

Hard to see how this would not be "murder" or war crime under international law that DoD considers applicable.

Read expert analysis by @bcfinucane.bsky.social⤵️

Well, anyone can argue anything, of course. As I was quoted in the piece, however, I don't think Article 38 covers the word of God.

After recent comments, should Julia Sebutinde still serve on Israel cases at the ICJ? Legal experts say that impartiality of world court's vice president may come under question after she said God was 'counting on' her to stand with Israel

Some more reporting from on ICJ Judge Sebutinde's controversial remarks about 'standing on the side of Israel', with comments from me, @drnajimagi.bsky.social, and @sevslv.bsky.social. www.middleeasteye.net/news/after-r....

I know it's universal jurisdiction but I think this basically works for treaty reservations, too.

Legal Tribune Online (‪@lto-de.bsky.social‬) hat 11 Völkerrechtsexperten gefragt, ob Israel in #Gaza einen Völkermord begeht.

Eindeutig bzgl 🇩🇪's Präventionspflicht.

Mit Analysen u.a. von @adhaque.bsky.social, @tomdannenbaum.bsky.social, @mikebecker.bsky.social and @itamann.bsky.social

Anyone interested in #ICJ cases including The Gambia v Myanmar, Ukraine v Russia, South Africa v Israel, and Canada/NL v Syria should consider how third-party fact-finding reports will factor into the ICJ's decision-making process & how the Court can better evaluate these materials.

Happy to share my new publication in the Leiden Journal of International Law: "Recent developments in reliance upon third-party fact-finding at the International Court of Justice". Available here: www.cambridge.org/core/journal....