I joined @dwnews immediately after the #ICJ handed down it's 13-2 decision in #SouthAfrica v #Israel today to provide some instant reaction.

Useful explainer on recognition of Palestinian statehood with good quotes from @ArdiImseis and others. v.

UK stance on recognition of Palestinian statehood is incoherent. If requirements of statehood are met, UK should proceed. If UK thinks they are not, don’t proceed. The idea that whether Israel changes its policies in Gaza is relevant to that determination is deeply problematic.

A case to watch….

Agree with @AdHaque110’s points here but would emphasize that there is no reason or expectation that South Africa v Israel will take anywhere near as long as the ICJ’s previous Genocide Convention cases, each of which involved complex jurisdictional questions not present here.

RT @tomdannenbaum: For almost 2 years, the claim of mass aid diversion by Hamas has been the pretext for Israel's illegal policy of obstruc….

Although I agree with @juliettemm that the ICJ likely wants to avoid a situation where Israel might claim that it was subject to different treatment. Deadline extensions are common and the court followed suit here by giving Israel additional time when it requested more time.

One point to clarify about #SouthAfrica v #Israel at the #ICJ. The case is not moving at a slower pace than other ICJ cases. It’s typical for ICJ cases to last 4-5 years & I don’t see any particular effort on the ICJ’s part to slow things down further due to nature of this case.

RT @tomdannenbaum: I'm grateful to have joined @DapoAkandeLaw, Marko Milanovic and Philippa Webb on EJIL: The Podcast (@ejiltalk) to discus….

These statements against interest by IDF generals should be highly relevant to South Africa v Israel at the ICJ and SA’s efforts to establish genocidal intent.

Israel’s very weak attempts over many months to offer a legal basis to obstruct and withhold aid (e.g, per article 23 of Geneva Convention IV) we’re built entirely on this factual premise, which Israel never persuasively established and which its military now admits was false.

RT @AdHaque110: “There can frankly be very little doubt that we are seeing starvation and hunger as an instrument of the war” . “It is a hi….

Climate activists will be ecstatic about so much of what the ICJ has said. It's a landmark decision, no doubt. But will this be a case of the #ICJ over-shooting the mark (and undermining its own authority) by staking out positions that states are simply unwilling to accept? 6/6.

Today’s opinion seems to have carefully avoided the ill-fated approach of the 1996 Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion, which arguably set back the cause of nuclear non-proliferation. The Court has not claimed that these are questions that the law does not or cannot address. 5/6.

What will the UK, France, Germany, and the Netherlands say? How about India and China, OPEC states, and developing states that depend on fossil fuel exploitation for revenue? 4/6.

This was the risk in the #ICJ going beyond reaffirmations of broadly accepted principles. I expect the US to treat the Court’s opinion with scorn & ridicule. But how will other states with strong fossil fuel interests react, esp those that claim to take int'l law seriously? 3/6.

This is the tip of the (melting?) iceberg. NGOs will celebrate. But are the ICJ’s big statements on attribution, responsibility & reparation going to be politically acceptable to states? Or will states use the ICJ’s more sweeping statements to dismiss the opinion out-of-hand? 2/6

The #ICJ advisory opinion covers a lot: customary status of climate change-related obligations, what due diligence means for adaptation/mitigation, impact of sea-level rise on statehood, how fossil fuel-related activities might constitute an internationally wrongful act. 1/6.

#ICJ says fossil fuel production/consumption, granting fossil fuel exploration licenses, or providing fossil fuel subsidies may constitute internationally wrongful acts. This is getting into the zone of the ICJ going beyond what states will find politically acceptable. Risky.

Useful thread to follow here on the #ICJ climate change opinion. My two big questions coming in: Will the ICJ say anything useful, perhaps especially in terms of climate litigation in domestic courts? Will the ICJ say anything harmful that undercuts the work of climate activists?.