Latest news with #InternationalCourtOfJustice
Japan Times
20 minutes ago
- Politics
- Japan Times
Vanuatu calls upcoming ICJ ruling a 'game-changer' for climate justice
The island nation of Vanuatu has been the driving force behind efforts to get the International Court of Justice to deliver its first-ever legal opinion on climate change. On the eve of the pivotal ruling in The Hague, the country's Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu, 54, who opened the ICJ's hearings in December, spoke about it. What does this case mean for Vanuatu and the world? "The Pacific Island leaders have made it very clear that climate change is the single greatest threat to the future of the Pacific peoples. "We're talking about climate change, the thing that's going to take away the future of our children. "For many Pacific countries, it's existential, because they will disappear, the low-lying countries like Tuvalu, like Kiribati. "If we cannot reduce the harm we're seeing, or try to slow it down, we're really facing the very worst consequences really soon." What are you hoping for from the ruling? "We're hoping that the ICJ will say that it is a legal obligation of states to address climate change. You have to respect other states and their right to self-determination. "Colonialism is gone — you know, supposedly gone — but this is a hangover where your conduct as a state continues to suppress the future of the people of another country. "And you don't have a legal right to do that under international law. And not only that, but if your actions have already caused this harm, there have to be reparations for that." What impact is climate change having on your country? "In Vanuatu, we're seeing large areas of land that were previously habitable, and people who have lived there for a long time can no longer live there." "The other thing you're seeing is really frequent and more intense tropical cyclones, which are the most damaging natural weather event we get in Vanuatu. "The cyclone season is getting longer, we're seeing more extreme rainfall events, which cause flooding, landslides, that kind of thing. "And the effect on the economy as well for the government. We're seeing a large amount of damage that has to be addressed by the state. "You're seeing a large proportion of our GDP just going to rebuilding, recovering, and then preparing. "We need assistance to be able to build resilient public infrastructure, so we don't have to continue to spend money on rebuilding." How do you feel on the eve of the ruling? "I feel optimistic. I think we're going to get a good opinion... "We are crossing fingers, but very hopeful that it'll be a good result. "And I think it will also be a game-changer for the whole climate discourse we're going through. "We've been going through this for 30 years, you know, so it'll shift. It'll shift the narrative, which is what we need to have." What consequences do you see from the ruling? "I think the advisory opinion will be very powerful within states to be used by people taking cases against their governments. "For every court, this will be something they can use. Whether it's a municipal-level court or a state-level court, they will be able to use this new ruling to force, try to make governments be more accountable and do more. "But also I think for countries like Vanuatu... we will be able to take this to help us make our arguments. "Legal clarity will be provided for a lot of the stuff we're arguing about for so long."
ABC News
a day ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Australia condemns Israel's 'indefensible' actions in Gaza as calls for sanctions grow louder
Public outrage around the globe as the Palestinian death toll has climbed into the tens of thousands in Gaza since 2023 has been followed only slowly by official statements from governments reluctant to criticise Israel. This reluctance was initially grounded in the shock of the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians, and the need to recognise wrongdoing on both sides. But as the relentless destruction of so much of Gaza, and the loss of so much human life continued — even amid protests and objections in Israel — the "measured" responses of Western governments, including Australia's, looked increasingly out of step with both what was seen occurring every day, and with the growing public disquiet. Israel's long-held position as a Western ally in a volatile and often hostile region seemed to make it seen first and foremost in these terms, rather than as one increasingly acting as a rogue state. This has been despite the push to prosecute a case of genocide against Israel in the International Court of Justice and to pursue individual cabinet ministers in the International Criminal Court. The crucial position of the United States as the only country with a capacity to impose real pressure on Israel — both through cutting aid and withholding military hardware — has long allowed other nations to feel they could hide behind the US's lack of action. But the new development in this terrible conflict — in which Israel has closed down the usual paths for humanitarian aid and replaced them with a US/Israeli-backed aid organisation of questionable merit — poses a more immediate and tangible point of pressure. The shocking daily tally of men, women and children killed while standing in line awaiting food and water — currently estimated at just under 1,000 people — has now seen a joint statement issued from 28 countries (including Australia, the UK, Canada and Japan, but not the US and Germany) condemning Israel for the "drip feeding of aid" and "inhumane killing of civilians" in Gaza. "It is horrifying that over 800 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid," the statement said. "The Israeli government's denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable. Israel must comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law." The Israeli foreign ministry said the joint statement was "disconnected from reality and sends the wrong message to Hamas", blaming the Palestinian militant group for the current impasse in ceasefire negotiations. Washington has also seemed equally dismissive of the interventions by other countries, with the US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee describing the joint statement condemning Israel's actions as "disgusting". But the UK's foreign secretary, David Lammy, said the new aid scheme was "a grotesque spectacle". "The Israeli government must answer: what possible military justification can there be for strikes that have killed desperate, starving children? What immediate actions are they taking to stop this litany of horrors? And what will they do to hold those responsible to account?" President Donald Trump's ill-founded belief in the power of personal presidential interventions has only further undermined confidence that the US might take material actions to influence Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But what actions can a country like Australia take to influence Israel's actions? The PM escalated language on the weekend, describing recent actions by the Israeli Defence Forces in Gaza as "completely indefensible" and warning Israel that it was losing international support by its actions. But humanitarian groups, including those representing Palestinians, want Australia to do more. They say that, beyond calling on Israel to adhere to international human law, Australia should end all military cooperation and assistance, demand immediate and unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza, and impose a comprehensive ban on all trade and economic activity in illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They say Australia should call on the UN Security Council to impose multilateral targeted sanctions on Israeli officials responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. There may be deep scepticism about whether the Netanyahu government, which has escalated its attacks on Gaza in the past 24 hours, pays any attention to these demands. But as Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa said yesterday, "the credibility of the international law-based order hinges on its ability to apply the law universally without exception and without delay." Laura Tingle is the ABC's Global Affairs Editor.
RNZ News
a day ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Peters on Gaza: 'The only way forward is an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire'
Foreign Minister Winston Peters says the world continues to be "confronted by horrifying scenes playing out in Gaza". Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The foreign minister has called for a ceasefire in Gaza in a statement delivered in Parliament, but the opposition says more action is needed. Winston Peters stopped short of promising further aid funding for Gaza, or promising to join efforts to prevents weapons being sold to Israel, or to recognise Palestine as an independent country until there is a representative to negotiate it with. But he did promise a "considered answer" on whether New Zealand would support South Africa's case at the International Court of Justice, which claims Israel has committed genocide. He concluded the debate in Parliament by noting "just how difficult it is to achieve an outcome, the control of which is not in our hands". Peters' speech followed New Zealand supporting a joint statement with 27 other countries calling for a ceasefire, and condemning the "drip-feeding of aid, and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children". He told the House the international community was united in its revulsion to the events in Gaza , saying too many lives had been lost. He said the overwhelming majority of Israelis and Palestinians also wanted an immediate ceasefire. "We continue to be confronted by horrifying scenes playing out in Gaza. We have the horror of innocent Israeli families, robbed of their loved ones in October 2023 by Hamas' heinous and immoral hostage taking, still yearning and demanding for them to be freed. "And we have the horror of more and more innocent Palestinian civilians starving, being deprived of their basic needs and being killed every day because Israel's military response to the events of October 7, 2023, long ago ceased to be proportionate, reasonable or moral; and because Hamas continues to act with complete disregard for civilian life." Peters pointed to the actions the government has taken so far, including designating the political wing of Hamas as a terrorist entity, and placing travel bans on two Israeli ministers. "The only way forward is an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire. Human suffering is indiscriminate. In this conflict it has been inflicted in vast quantities on Israelis and Palestinians; Jews, Muslims and Christians. Further bloodshed serves absolutely no purpose. It must stop." He pointed to the joint statement, saying "hopefully, in time, that level of pressure will prevail". The opposition parties took the opportunity to give their own statements on the matter, all broadly saying they supported the statement, but action needed to follow the words. Labour's Peeni Henare said the party supported the call for a ceasefire and denounced the actions of Hamas but Israel's ongoing military campaign and blockade had "created one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent memory" with more than 58,000 Palestinians killed in 19 months. "Ninety percent of Gaza's population has been displaced, infrastructure, homes, hospitals and schools have been decimated. Nearly half a million people are facing catastrophic hunger, approximately 71,000 children under 5 are expected to be acutely malnourished, pregnant and breastfeeding women are starving." However, he said there was "more that New Zealand can do and must do", urging more aid and for New Zealand to support South Africa's ICJ case. The Green Party's Teanau Tuiono shared the story of a family he was helping to get their grandmother to New Zealand from Palestine. "They had come from Gaza and she was here for one week before the bombs dropped on her apartment, destroying the apartment that she lived in ... I want members around the house to remember that, that when they look overseas and see their grandmothers, their daughters, their grandfathers, their brothers and sisters dying, that this is something that the house should take account." He called for further sanctions against Israel, and for New Zealand to join the efforts of South Africa and 12 other countries on preventing the provision of weapons to Israel and urgently review public contracts to prevent public funds supporting Israel. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said millions of children were being deliberately starved with no access to food and water. "It's not a food crisis. If food is waiting at the border, it's deliberately starving of children and wiping out of people ... we do not accept this government pathetic lip service calling for a ceasefire, it's your fifth time in two years. We must end this human crisis. Sanction Israel. Sanction everyone supporting them." He also called for the Israeli ambassador to be expelled. Under questioning from his opposition colleagues, Peters said the ICJ case against Israel had not yet been decided, and it would be wrong to prejudge the court's decisions. Asked why New Zealand had not also frozen assets when it imposed travel bans on the Israeli ministers, Peters said the justification for that had not yet been established. He said to recognise Palestinian statehood would be "lowering the standards of statehood" because "we need to establish who it is we're going to negotiate with before we recognise" but Palestinian statehood was a question of when, not if. National and ACT did not speak in the debate. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Arab News
2 days ago
- Politics
- Arab News
Israel continues to flout world court ruling on its occupation
One year ago on Saturday, the International Court of Justice issued a landmark advisory opinion. The world's highest interstate court determined on July 19, 2024, that Israel's occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip was 'unlawful' and must be brought to an end. The key paragraph was crystal clear. It stated: 'The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel's presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful.' It also ruled that Israel's discriminatory legislation and measures are also in breach of international law. They constituted a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. This was an authoritative determination on the state of the law on a specific issue. It was fortified by a UN General Assembly resolution last September endorsing the advisory opinion and demanding that the Israeli occupation ends by September 2025. There is more chance of Benjamin Netanyahu knocking on the doors of the International Criminal Court and saying, 'here I am, arrest me, I am guilty as charged,' than there is of that happening. Israel has to dismantle its settlements and evacuate settlers. It has to do so immediately. And its military presence also needs to be withdrawn. The court determined that Israel owes full reparation for all the damage done by its illegal acts since 1967. Working out the exact compensation due will be some process, but the end figure will have many digits. The court determined that Israel owes full reparation for all the damage done by its illegal acts since 1967 Chris Doyle Showing the sort of contempt that might be expected from a government perpetrating genocide in Gaza, Israel has simply doubled down on its occupation. Settlements are expanding faster than ever, with approval for the doomsday settlement of E1 east of Jerusalem going forward apace. Settler violence is off the charts, with more than 740 settler attacks in the first half of 2025, according to the UN. Demolitions are a daily event. Israel has forcibly displaced more than 40,000 Palestinians in the West Bank alone, as well as nearly the entire population of Gaza. Rather than end the occupation, the Israeli government is pushing relentlessly toward annexation. Occupation in and of itself is not illegal. It may even be necessary. But it is meant to be temporary and is governed by international law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. At the time the court's opinion was issued, Israel's occupation had lasted a jaw-dropping 57 years and involved the insertion of 750,000 settlers into occupied territory. But the court also went further. It determined that Israel had violated the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. It was the ultimate legal determination as to Israel's crimes and unlawful conduct across the whole of the Occupied Territories. There is no higher judicial body to make such a determination. Major powers are under an obligation to prevent and to punish genocide when other states are perpetrating such acts Chris Doyle But who refers to the occupation as unlawful? The US, of course, refuses, as it barely even acknowledges the occupation, a head-in-the-sand legal position. The UK government promised Parliament it would issue a formal response to this — a pledge repeated multiple times. But it seems that 365 days is insufficient time for the government to develop the courage to publish its response, as sources have told this author that a draft has been ready for months. Remarkably, the UK government has stated at the UN that it does not disagree with the central findings of the advisory opinion. The awkwardness of the double negative sums up the awkwardness of the position. Ministers cannot even outline what they consider to be the central findings. Has the media changed how it describes the Occupied Territories? Certainly not the BBC or CNN. This was barely mentioned. It is as if it is still treated as a disputed issue, as opposed to a settled matter of legal certainty. The lack of respect for the International Court of Justice is also exhibited in the abject refusal of Israel to adhere to the provisional measures the court ordered on three occasions under the Genocide Convention between January and May 2024. Major powers have not insisted Israel do so either, even though they are under an obligation to prevent and to punish genocide when other states are perpetrating such acts. Israel should have taken all measures to prevent genocidal acts and ensure the unhindered provision of humanitarian aid, including food, water, electricity, fuel, shelter, clothing, hygiene and sanitation requirements, and medical supplies. Instead, Israel has, as a matter of declared policy, blocked this. Many governments pay lip service to upholding international law when it comes to Israel. It is time for those who do care to expose this hypocrisy for what it is.
New York Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Trump, if You Pull This Off, You Deserve a Nobel
I didn't want Donald Trump to be president. But once he was elected, I wondered if his impulse to smash convention could actually do some good in the Middle East. In the Times Opinion video above, I lay out my proposal. The status quo was a nightmare. President Joe Biden's feckless response to Israel's blood bath in Gaza epitomized decades of failed, immoral, self-defeating U.S. policy in the region. While tens of thousands of Palestinians died, the United States was lavishing cash and weapons on Israel even as Mr. Biden pretended there was no leverage or influence within his reach. This has been America's Mideast stance in a nutshell: Talk about peace, feed war. I've been watching it since I first reported from Israel and the occupied territories in 2002, in the bad old days of the second intifada. Cycles of unsustainable calm mask political disintegration, then erupt into unthinkable violence. And where have our policies gotten us? The International Court of Justice is deciding whether the killing in Gaza is, in fact, a genocide. We've been wading in the edges of war with Iran. The United States is running down its weapon stockpile for an Israeli war that has no discernible (or sensible) end game or a political solution for the Palestinians anywhere on the horizon. This has got to stop — and it can. With some deft diplomacy, Mr. Trump has a generational opportunity to change the dynamics in the Middle East. What might that look like? I gamed out the three major, interlocking deals the president can make if he's serious about peace and willing to run a tough negotiation. Will he do any of it? Who knows? This is Donald Trump, after all. But he could, and he should. Megan K. Stack is a contributing Opinion writer who has reported from the Middle East for years. Sam Ellis is a video journalist and creator of Search Party, a YouTube channel. Opinion Video combines original reporting with creative storytelling to produce visually transformative commentary. Pitch a video guest essay here. The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: letters@ Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
