Some thoughts on #Trump's plan to "take over #Gaza" & the legal implications in the NYT, also feat Marko Milanovic i.a. - violation of the prohibition on aggression - crime against humanity of forcible transfer - violation of the prohib. on conquest www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/w... - ThreadSky

About ThreadSky

janinadill.bsky.social • 23 days ago

Some thoughts on #Trump's plan to "take over #Gaza" & the legal implications in the NYT, also feat Marko Milanovic
i.a.
- violation of the prohibition on aggression
- crime against humanity of forcible transfer
- violation of the prohib. on conquest

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/world/middleeast/trump-gaza-takeover-illegal.html

Comments

janinadill.bsky.social•22 days ago

And a very quick explainer in German for ARD/WDR

janinadill.bsky.social•22 days ago

And here some thoughts by Mark Weller. And from me a quick hint that the United States could become an occupying power with the attending obligations and prohibitions

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/02/05/trump-gaza-control-palestinian-displacement-israel/#link-F3K2WDQWCFGJ3JBLGG7T2EUXHA

dimitrivdm.bsky.social•23 days ago

Thanks for sharing. I continue to be confused by Marko's indication that prohibition use of force hinges on Palestinian statehood. ICJ seems quite explicit that occupation - even bracketing question of statehood - "involves, by its very nature, a continued use of force in foreign territory" (AO 253)

janinadill.bsky.social•23 days ago

I understand Marko to say that the prohibition on conquest depends on Palestinian statehood (which I would be comfortable to affirm), not the prohibition on the use of force.

dimitrivdm.bsky.social•23 days ago

I also find this hard to rhyme with the AO points on annexation, which do not hinge on determination of statehood. But perhaps I am missing something here...

dimitrivdm.bsky.social•23 days ago

There is some ambiguity in these few lines on conquest / annexation / use of force but it resonates with his EJIL:Talk point that occupation is not jus ad bellum problem (contra AO). The piece indeed seems to indicate (mistakenly, I think) that short of statehood, this is SD (not use of force) issue

Posting Rules

Be respectful to others
No spam or self-promotion
Stay on topic
Follow Bluesky's terms of service

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply