scholarly journals Hague trial: Aung San Suu Kyi denies genocide in Myanmar

2020 ◽  
pp. 115-126
Author(s):  
A.A. Simoniya ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Community ◽  
The Gambia ◽  
Salvation Army ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Aung San Suu Kyi ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Military

The article is devoted to the amazing events of the end of 2019 related to the situation of Myanmar in the international community. This is an unprecedented claim by the Gambia to the International Court of Justice against Myanmar and the decision of Aung San Suu Kyi to personally lead a group of lawyers to attend court sessions in the Hague. The leader of Myanmar denies charges of genocide and says that army units acted against militant separatists in Rakhine state − the Arakan Rohingya salvation Army fighters. Aung San Suu Kyi is convinced that the military operations against the militants were aimed at protecting the sovereignty and security of Myanmar. Special attention is paid to the speech of the leader of Myanmar at the trial.

Myanmar UN court case will be least of Suu Kyi’s woes

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Court Case ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Aung San Suu Kyi ◽  
The Icj ◽  
National League ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Military

Subject Problems facing State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi. Significance The UN's International Court of Justice (ICJ) next week begins hearing a case in which Myanmar is accused of genocide against the Rohingya people. State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi plans to lead a delegation to The Hague to defend her country. Meanwhile, her National League for Democracy (NLD) is stepping up preparations for next year’s general election. Impacts If the ICJ issues an initial ruling against Myanmar, foreign investors yet to shun the country may start pulling out. As Myanmar becomes increasingly isolated, it will lean more heavily on China. The military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party is unlikely to gain much electoral ground at the 2020 polls.

C1. ISRAELI HIGH COURT, RULING ON THE SEPARATION FENCE, JERUSALEM, 30 JUNE 2004 (EXCERPTS).

2004 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-163
Keyword(s):  
West Bank ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
High Court ◽  
Military Commander ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Military

The case was brought before the High Court on 29 February by villagers from Bayt Surik, Biddu, al-Kabiba, Ka'ane, Bayt Anan, Bayt Laqia, Bayt Ajaza, and Bayt Daku challenging the seizure of their lands and the disproportionate hardship caused by the wall's route; the defendants (““respondents””) were the Government of Israel and the military commander of the West Bank. Unlike the International Court of Justice at the Hague, the High Court was not called upon to consider the wall as a whole, but only a 40-km stretch (out of the 832-km total length) northwest of Jerusalem. The court ruled without deliberation in favor of Israel's right to build the wall on West Bank lands and the security nature of the project. Most of the opinion concerned the legality of the specific route. The court considered six separate orders pertaining to different segments of the wall and ruled that disproportionate hardship was caused to the inhabitants along about 30 km. For these segments, the court ordered the military commander to ““consider alternatives which, even if they result in a lower level of security, will cause a substantial (even if not complete) reduction of the damage to the lives of the local inhabitants”” (para. 76). In compliance with the order, the IDF on 8 July finalized a proposal for a new path for the wall in the Bayt Surik area, but Prime Minister Sharon and Defense Minister Mofaz had not formally approved it by the end of the quarter. The full text of the court ruling can be found on the High Court's Web site at www.court.gov.il.

An Examination of the Authority of the Military Commander to Requisition Privately Owned Land for the Construction of the Separation Barrier

2005 ◽  
Vol 38 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 247-261
Author(s):  
Nir Keidar
Keyword(s):  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
High Court ◽  
Military Commander ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Specific Duty ◽  
The Military ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Privately Owned

This paper examines the authority of the Military Commander to requisition privately owned land for the construction of the Separation Barrier within the West Bank, which is held through a regime of belligerent occupation. The examination focuses on Article 52 of the Hague Regulations, which deals with the issue of requisitions in kind. Moreover, the relationship between Articles 23(g) and 52 of the Hague Regulations is discussed, in light of the ICJ's decision whereas Article 23(g) is irrelevant after the close of active hostilities. This paper argues that while Article 52 grants the Military Commander the authority for such requisitions, Israel must demonstrate in each specific case that there a specific duty of the army of occupation which gives rise to a specific need of the army of occupation, in accordance with Article 52. The relevant decisions of the International Court of Justice and the Israeli High Court of Justice (HCJ) are examined, especially the High Court of Justice's Beit Sourik judgments and the International Court of Justice's Legal Consequences case.

scholarly journals Ziemia Eryka Rudego. Duńsko-norweski spór o terytoria na wschodzie Grenlandii

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 131-148
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Kubiak
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Interwar Period ◽  
Limited Time ◽  
World War ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Territorial Claims ◽  
Geographical Space

Eric The Red’s Land cannot be found on contemporary maps. There are not many older cartographic publications in which such an area would be marked either. They were published in only one country, Norway, and for a limited time. This was the result of the territorial claims that Norway reported to parts of eastern Greenland. To locate the area in geographical space, the name of Eric The Red’s Land was used (Norwegian: Eirik Raudes Land). Norwegian claims to East Greenland met the strong opposition of Denmark. In the interwar period, it seemed that the verdict of the Permanent International Court of Justice in The Hague, adopted in 1933 and recognizing Denmark’s sovereignty over all of Greenland, had ended the dispute. However, during World War II, Norway raised the issue of the possession of eastern Greenland again. This happened at a time when both Nordic countries were occupied by Germany. The cooperation with Germany undertaken by “Arctic expansionists” ultimately intersected with Norwegian ambitions in the eastern part of Greenland.

The Doctrine of the Equality of Nations in International Law and the Relation of the Doctrine to the Treaty of Versailles

1920 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 540-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. W. Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Treaty Of Versailles ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Hague

The Hague Conference of 1907 had for one of its objects the formation of an international court of justice, the decisions of which were to systematize international law and resolve its inconsistencies. Such an international court, the “Court of Arbitral Justice,” was approved in principle by the Conference, but failed to be established because the Conference was unable to agree on the composition of the court.

Innate Cosmopolitan Dialectics at the ICJ: Changing Perceptions of International Community, the Role of the Court, and the Legacy of Judge Álvarez

2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-330
Author(s):  
GEOFFREY GORDON
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Community ◽  
Public Order ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Dialectical Process ◽  
The Right

AbstractTraditional conceptions of the international community have come under stress in a time of expanding international public order. Various initiatives purport to observe a reconceived international community from a variety of perspectives: transnational, administrative, pluralist, constitutional, etc. The perspectives on this changing dynamic evidenced by the International Court of Justice, however, have been largely neglected. But as the principal judicial institution tasked with representing the diversity of legal perspectives in the world, the Court represents an important forum by which to understand the changing appreciation of international community. While decisions of the Court have been restrained, an active discourse has been carried forward among individual judges. I look at part of that discourse, organized around one perspective, which I refer to as innate cosmopolitanism, introduced to the forum of the ICJ by the opinions of Judge Álvarez. The innate cosmopolitan perspective reflects an idea of the international community as an autonomous collectivity, enjoying a will, interests, or ends of its own, independent of constituent states. The application of that perspective under international law is put most to test in matters of international security, in particular where the interest in a discrete, global public order runs up against the right to self-defence vested in states. The innate cosmopolitan perspective has not, in these cases, achieved a controlling position – but, over time, it has been part of a dialectical process showing a change in the appreciation of international community before the Court, and a changing perception from the bench of the role of the Court in that community.

The International Court of Justice and the Responsibility to Protect: Learning from the Case of The Gambia v. Myanmar

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Martin Mennecke
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Gambia ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Unique Contribution ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Accountability Measures ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Central Actor

Abstract It is a commonplace in the R2P discourse to describe accountability measures as key means to implement the responsibility to protect. In particular, the International Criminal Court is regularly highlighted as a central actor, both in the literature, the annual R2P reports issued by the UN Secretary-General, and the subsequent debates in the UN General Assembly. Conspicuously absent from this conversation is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (icj). This article examines the potential role of the ‘World Court’, as The Gambia in November 2019 started a new case under the UN Genocide Convention against Myanmar before the icj. Analysing the limitations and prospects and existing icj case-law, the article concludes that the International Court of Justice can make an important and unique contribution to the responsibility to protect.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document