Important Takeaways:
- The move announced at the UN general assembly is the first time the ICJ, based in The Hague, has been used by one country to take another to court over gender discrimination.
- The case is being brought under the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, which was adopted by the general assembly in 1979 and brought into force in 1981.
- Afghanistan, prior to the 2021 Taliban takeover of the country, ratified the convention in 2003.
- In the first legal move of this type since the Taliban took over, it is expected that Afghanistan would have six months to provide a response before the ICJ would hold a hearing and probably propose provisional measures.
- Advocates of the course argue that even if the Taliban refuse to acknowledge the court’s authority, an ICJ ruling would have a deterrent effect on other states seeking to normalize diplomatic relations with the Taliban.
- Last month, the Taliban published a new set of vice and virtue laws that said women must not leave the house without being fully covered and could not sing or raise their voices in public.
- The countries involved in the litigation say they are willing to negotiate with the Taliban in good faith to end gender discrimination, but will, if the necessary stages prove fruitless, seek a hearing at the ICJ.
Read the original article by clicking here.
Important Takeaways:
- The United Nations general assembly’s resolution on Wednesday advanced a dramatic legal shift, begun by the international court of justice (ICJ) in July, in how we understand Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory.
- The ICJ had found Israel’s prolonged occupation to be unlawful and ordered it to end “as rapidly as possible”.
- The headline on the general assembly resolution was that it ordered Israel to withdraw from occupied Palestinian territory within one year. But that is only the beginning.
- International humanitarian law, which governs warfare, is neutral about the fact of occupation but imposes duties on the occupier for how it must treat the occupied population.
- But the ICJ, and now the general assembly, also looked to a separate body of law which regards prolonged occupation as the illegal forcible acquisition of territory.
- Israel is violating both sets of laws.
- The general assembly and ICJ actions also have implications for the international criminal court (ICC), which is currently considering the prosecutor’s request for arrest warrants for Netanyahu and the Israeli defense minister, Yoav Gallant, as well as three senior Hamas officials.
- The Israeli government will undoubtedly resist, but everyone else has a duty to press it to comply – and to avoid any contribution, military or commercial, to Israeli defiance.
Read the original article by clicking here.
