00:00:00:

00:00:08: Welcome to this episode of Mina Watch Talk.

00:00:11: My name is Florian Martel and it's a special honor for me welcome Mr.

00:00:16: Andrew Tucker as our guest today, Andrew Tucker is the director of The Hague Initiative For International Cooperation Think abbreviated an organization founded in two thousand and seventeen.

00:00:28: so first of all mr.

00:00:29: Tucker are welcomed.

00:00:30: thank you very much.

00:00:33: Thank you Florian, it's good to be here.

00:00:35: Your organization Think describes itself as a global network of international law.

00:00:39: academics practitioners and experts in related disciplines.

00:00:43: could please briefly describe for our audience what is Think Exactly And What Do You Do?

00:00:50: So we uh As I said It's A Network.

00:00:52: Really We Were Triggered By Uh What We See And We Call Lawfare Within The United Nations the international legal institutions to push certain political or ideological agendas.

00:01:10: Of course, using the legal system is nothing wrong with that.

00:01:13: it happens all of time everybody does it but we feel when it comes to the Middle East generally and certainly Israel there are a lot of political agendas being pushed.

00:01:26: It's widely recognized in United Nations And the legal system, particularly in international courts but also national courts.

00:01:36: The UN Human Rights Council.

00:01:38: organizations and institutions like this are lobbied or manipulated to pursue those objectives.

00:01:47: Our role is to analyze all of these and put perhaps a different perspective that sometimes put out into the media and in to, uh... into the U.N..

00:02:00: We have

00:02:00: a focus on Israel but we look at the Middle East more generally ...we do lot of work also concerning Lebanon Syria Iran ..and we looked up conflict with an international humanitarian law ,the laws or war our laws of armed conflict.

00:02:15: that we look all.

00:02:16: so it's International Human Rights Law.

00:02:19: .We Look At Other Issues relating to Israeli Palestinian Conflict and trying really to unpack the legal issues, to help lay people and lawyers understand the dynamics

00:02:31: of

00:02:33: discussion that is taking place.

00:02:35: And we do this through our network of academics around the world and others from a legal profession but also historians sociologists who participate in these initiatives.

00:02:49: You said it's all about combating the misuse of international law, how do we have to understand this?

00:02:56: How is International Law misused.

00:02:59: What are they most common practices or methods off these misuses of International Law?

00:03:05: and who were the main actors?

00:03:06: I mean you already mentioned in United Nations an international court.

00:03:08: so what are their main actors that your dealing with?

00:03:11: Well, I think the starting point to understand.

00:03:13: The United Nations is a political body and in general assembly every state has an equal vote.

00:03:19: So you have a hundred ninety-three member states voting daily as it were on issues coming up And Israel's always at center of agenda.

00:03:29: Certainly when it comes to Human Rights Council where Israel Is At Top Of The Agenda It All Happens Through Voting On Resolutions.

00:03:37: And when you have a majority of states pushing a particular view and the typical ones are relating to, um... The Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

00:03:49: When it comes to settlements occupation and so forth this concept that all Israeli settlements are illegal That the Israeli occupation has become illegal?

00:04:00: That Israel is a genocidal state an apartheid States that it is a colonialist enterprise, undermines modern concepts of international law.

00:04:11: All these views are ventilated by means of resolutions.

00:04:18: so we read resolutions that posit legal positions and even conclusions And they're widely regarded as being authoritative statements Of Law where there simply political views dressed up because they've never been adjudicated in an authoritative court.

00:04:36: Now, more recently we're seeing the mobilization or even weaponisation of the International Criminal Court and National Court of Justice particularly since October the seventh which seen this will get into that discussion today a whole range of cases brought by particularly the Arab Islamic States.

00:04:58: The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation is a driving group, that's an organization of over fifty UN member states who are members of the OIC.

00:05:10: And then when they work together with European States or former Soviet states They have automatic majority in the

00:05:18: U.N.,

00:05:19: and can push these resolutions through.

00:05:22: It's their political ideological view relating to the way the Middle East should be shaped and position, even elimination of Jewish state which in our view is at least we believe that it's a credible perspective say this view driving lot legal rhetoric.

00:05:46: So thats what mean by law fair And we can talk about European Union.

00:05:50: you know since nineteen eighty has taken of the two-state solution, and they regard it politically as a legal requirement that a Palestinian state be established side by side with Israel in the territories occupied in nineteen sixty seven.

00:06:11: Now our analysis is there's very little legal justification or requirement for that view.

00:06:18: Two states may be desirable political outcome but its not illegal requirements.

00:06:24: So these are the kinds of issues that we feel important to be addressing.

00:06:32: I'd like to focus our conversation not so much on The United Nations, but one of the institutions within the institutional ensemble which is the International Court Of Justice which, after all plays a major role in your work as I understand and i read on your website.

00:06:49: Why is this the case?

00:06:50: why is the ICJ it's called so important when it comes to

00:06:54: Israel?".

00:06:55: So, ICJ is the highest United Nations judicial institution.

00:07:00: that's commonly known as The World Court established resides here in the Hague In the Peace Palace And its just commonly regarded legal voice in the world.

00:07:14: So if you have questions that need to be answered, we go to the ICJ which has two functions.

00:07:21: it can resolve disputes or conflicts between states.

00:07:26: It's an interstate judicial tribunal so States can bring a case If they agree.

00:07:33: both parties agree They can bring into court and its decision will be binding on The parties for their conflict.

00:07:40: It also has an advisory function.

00:07:43: So any UN body, whether it be the General Assembly or a UN agency... If there is a legal question then they can put that question to court and the court gives advice for that UN agency.

00:08:00: but those advices are not binding.

00:08:07: There are a voice of fifteen judges which have drawn from many different judicial backgrounds and countries.

00:08:14: Those fifteen judges sit on the bench at court, they make these advisory opinions.

00:08:20: And that advisory opinion function we've seen leveraged over last years in different contexts to resolve often what very political questions whether it be climate change There's a whole range of things which now non-government organizations mobilized states to bring these cases to the court.

00:08:44: Back in two thousand four, there was an advisory opinion sought in relation to Israeli-Palestinian conflict and status security barrier that Israel is constructing on the second Intifada.

00:09:02: made an opinion that it felt that construction was infringing international law in several ways.

00:09:09: But since the seventh of October, we've seen several cases now brought to the ICJ to try and have the court make a pronouncement condemning Israel for infringing International Law And they use that advisory-opinion process To do it... ...and then secondly several states bringing genocide convention cases to the court.

00:09:35: These are now contentious cases, we have one now Myanmar against the Gambia or The Gambia Against Myanmar and We Have South Africa Against Israel States like south africa in the gambia of being used by the international organizations Like the OIC To bring these Cases And as it will unlock the courts advisory jurisdiction to get these kinds of legal opinions out into the public arena.

00:10:06: Many of them are not binding, but if the ICJ says that Israel is committing genocide then most people will believe it.

00:10:16: It's an extremely important court and at risk for being politicized political purposes.

00:10:30: As you said, it is a highly respected court and people always think that okay whatever the ICJ says is international law or represents international law as I understand from your words now... Is the ICG really neutral institution?

00:10:48: That does nothing but impartially administer justice regardless of the issues or the parties involved, is there also bias within the ICJ and its decisions?

00:11:01: Look it's a very good question.

00:11:02: I think first thing to understand international law... It's a unique creature not like our national laws where you can go into the Austrian or Dutch civil code you'll know the rules that are applicable to a certain conflict or situation.

00:11:20: It's actually law is more complex, it's more political...it's the Law of Nations and so its less able make very definitive rulings on specific situations now..its more like a kind-of set of principles & rules which guide conductive nations.

00:11:40: but when your asking the court specific decision on a very concrete situation, we get into the area where the court has to dig deeply in to the facts.

00:11:53: To find out what is going on in the ground whether it be Myanmar or Nigeria

00:11:58: or

00:11:59: Israel.

00:12:00: and this Court is not set up to do that.

00:12:03: This isn't criminal court for example.

00:12:05: This was a court of eminent judges many academics.

00:12:09: they don't have a criminal law background and the court doesn't have the capacity to do fact-finding.

00:12:15: So that's an important point, um... And secondly all of these judges have their own political perspective.

00:12:25: Judges do normally but certainly on The International Court.

00:12:29: They bring with them their national background Their ideological backgrounds.

00:12:35: If we take the Chinese judge for example I think it is not unfair to say that she would largely represent the political interests of China.

00:12:46: Most people will see it and we have judges from Europe, but we also have them in Middle East or Africa.

00:12:58: International lawyers especially when they are academics often have a strong ideology.

00:13:09: it's very easy for them to look at a situation, particularly political conflict through that ideological framework.

00:13:20: It is inevitable.

00:13:21: I think so.

00:13:23: we can call that bias and influence but shapes the way court looks in situations felt that the court is becoming politicized and some of judges are allowing themselves to be led by interests in certain groups or states.

00:13:57: When we're dealing with Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict often times were talking about cases taking place during wartime like... after October seventh, for example.

00:14:09: Are there any experts on international humanitarian law among these judges?

00:14:13: Or are they all respected jurists but not specialists when it comes to military or international humanitarian

00:14:21: law?".

00:14:23: It's an extremely good question, Florian because indeed many of the judges most do have a background in international humanitarian laws and the laws of war And many don't even have judicial backgrounds as well.

00:14:37: So they're not used to, let's say ascertaining the rules.

00:14:43: The specific rules of lawfare and international law has a broad set of rules through the Geneva Conventions for example And applying those rules to the specifics of this situation.

00:14:58: so what we are finding is that there led very much by UN reports that are coming out of the UN institutions, whether it be the General Assembly or the Human Rights Council.

00:15:10: And they take for granted... ...the factual findings and even legal findings from those institutions because they don't really have a background in their capacity to go deeply into these questions.

00:15:25: This is very concerning development.

00:15:31: Let's take the Human Rights Council, which is producing almost on a monthly basis through its permanent commission of inquiry or special rappel to Obanesia.

00:15:44: Producing reports condemning Israel continually for breaches as the law of apartheid, breaches of the law genocide, breachers international human rights law and international humanitarian rule.

00:15:57: that constantly making these findings And the ICJ, fifteen judges.

00:16:05: they're dealing with a lot of cases.

00:16:06: They don't have time.

00:16:08: so...they will take those UN reports as being extremely persuasive if not almost binding on them.

00:16:18: and also because the ICG is an UN court it's kind of embedded in that UN system therefore trusts whatever coming out And this, in our view is highly problematic.

00:16:59: bias framing of UN General Assembly's questions for a moment and focus on the content of this advisory opinion, what were key points to that?

00:17:12: This was a question put by the General Assembly to the court.

00:17:15: To give a view upon what is called legal consequences of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory.

00:17:27: Right, so it was already putting to the court.

00:17:28: The idea that this is Palestinian territory That Israel is illegally occupying and asking the Court to Tell us tell the world what the legal consequences are?

00:17:56: belong to and it assumed that arguments were put by the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which calls itself The State of Palestine was able to participate in those proceedings.

00:18:14: And they put the view total area of the territories occupied in sixty-seven.

00:18:32: So, The Court never did a real historical analysis... ...of their history of this area,... ..the history of the creation of the state of Israel,... ...the Jordanian invasion in nineteen forty eight and so forth.... ....and was able to come out with the statement that all the territory West Bank even East Jerusalem..... belongs to the Palestinians and must become part of a Palestinian state.

00:19:02: As a result, Israel's occupation according to majority judges has became illegal.

00:19:09: Israel must remove Israelis in those territories as soon as

00:19:14: possible.".

00:19:15: Now that is highly controversial statement and a number of the judges in the court were violently, in opposition to that.

00:19:25: They said this is very poorly reasoned opinion for different reasons.

00:19:31: so six of the fifteen judges distanced themselves from their opinions.

00:19:37: nevertheless it's being taken into international community as an authority view.

00:19:46: not only is Israel required to negotiate with the Palestinians as it seeks to do under Oslo Accords, but now its occupation has become illegal.

00:19:57: It must withdraw unilaterally from the territories and this is of course something Israel refuses to do and believes that it has the right to remain in the territory until a final resolution with the Palestinians.

00:20:16: That's really the essence of that advisory opinion came out in July, two thousand twenty-four and that is truly a basis.

00:20:25: now we see a number European states wanting to impose sanctions boycotts on products from occupied territories for example pressuring

00:20:43: Israel came in control of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights.

00:20:47: And what was often called East Jerusalem in nineteen sixty-seven no one was calling I mean people were calling it an occupation but they weren't considering illegal that Israel occupied these territories.

00:21:03: after all there where acquired a preventive war provoked very much by the Arab states.

00:21:09: So even The Security Council in nineteen sixty seven didn't say that the occupation, as they call it is illegal In any way.

00:21:15: so what were the reasons for the ICJ to suddenly declare?

00:21:18: the Occupation Illegal when It was never before done so By the authoritative institutions of the UN?

00:21:26: Well then the main reason That the court sort of adopted and this Was the legal argument put by the Palestinians into their Arab States I mean i was in Court during the oral hearings Of the case The whole set of proceedings was dominated by both the Palestinians and a large number of Arab Islamic states who pushed the view.

00:21:49: Essentially, the Palestinians have a right to solve determination this goes right back to nineteen twenty and the mandate for Palestine they argue is illegal because it overrode fundamental human rights of the Palestinians being, let's say, indigenous people to statehood in their territory.

00:22:15: The court basically assumed this historical narrative is correct but it was first time that anybody has said an occupation itself had become illegal and infringement of the right to self-determination.

00:22:41: And this right to statehood that Palestinians apparently seem have a right too, again there's lot be said about as well.

00:22:53: you know lots people groups in world who would love an estate think if Kurdish for example but nobody say they had automatic rights.

00:23:04: so it is.

00:23:08: It's a revision of history, really.

00:23:12: And using this rhetoric of human rights to justify... ...this kind of outcome?

00:23:22: Let us now come the second major issue related to ICJ and that is South Africa.

00:23:28: in South Africa case against Israel regarding alleged violations of the genocide convention.

00:23:34: Can you give us an overview of where we currently stand in these proceedings?

00:23:40: Yes, certainly.

00:23:41: So the case was started in December, two thousand twenty-three less than three months after October.

00:23:52: the seventh South Africa I think it's twenty ninth of December.

00:23:57: two thousand Twenty Three initiated proceedings at The International Court Of Justice arguing that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and asking the court to make a ruling, preliminary ruling preventing Israel from pursuing the war in the Gaza Strip.

00:24:18: It's not the first Genocide case before the Court.

00:24:21: we've seen a number of genocide cases before the ICJ particularly ones coming out of the Balkan Wars.

00:24:27: We had a series of cases In two decades this century.

00:24:34: These are cases brought under the Genocide Convention.

00:24:37: A genocide convention is a separate treaty, most states but not all but most States of party to that convention and under the convention they agree if there's any dispute between them about interpretation or its application to make a decision, so they're using that mechanism.

00:25:07: Now what's unusual about this case?

00:25:09: But there is another one going on before that – the case of the Gambia against Myanmar.

00:25:15: This was instituted much earlier well before October the seventh and it concerns the conflict in north of Myanmar and their dealing with the Rohingyas A very different situation But that was case brought by the Gambia, which is not involved in that conflict between Myanmar and the Rohingyas.

00:25:40: Neither of South Africa are involved in the Gaza Strip so they there.

00:25:46: it's their first time that The convention he's being used by states that I'm not directly have a direct interest In particular conflicts but they're saying we have a right under the genocide to convention because every state has an interest in whether or not the convention is being complied with.

00:26:05: That's fair enough, that's what the court has said.

00:26:08: so that's how South Africa gets into the courts.

00:26:12: it's a very low threshold they have to pass.

00:26:17: well we are standing before this case.

00:26:20: The case went through hearings in the first few months of two thousand twenty-four.

00:26:33: The courts made a number of preliminary decisions and it has never said court is never said that Israel was committing genocide In the Gaza Strip, It did say in February two thousand Twenty four that there Is a plausibility?

00:26:53: That the South Africans have A right to bring the case that the Palestinians are people protected by the convention.

00:27:02: That's all the court has said, and now what it is called in the merits phase.

00:27:09: South Africa have submitted a very substantial set of documents to prove their case.

00:27:15: Israel has submitted its reply.

00:27:18: This will go through another case.

00:27:20: It'll take three years before this case Is going anywhere near judgment.

00:27:27: But in the meantime, a whole range of states have intervened in the court to put their view.

00:27:34: And most of them trying to put arguments why Israel should be essentially convicted of committing genocide and this is very unique way that convention has now been I think we can say used effectively.

00:27:54: bring determination of whether or not a state is committing genocide.

00:28:01: And as I said, this court... ...is NOT a court to resolve these kinds of criminal law issues.

00:28:10: Genocide is part of international criminal law so you have to understand the deep facts on-the-ground in order to make a determination.

00:28:19: wether or not Israel has the intention —or Myanmar—in the case of the Rohingyas' The Intention to eliminate or destroy a group as such.

00:28:33: That's the essence of the genocide definition, The intention is to destroy in whole or impart a group.

00:28:41: so mass killings As bad they may be and are not proof of genocide.

00:28:49: You have to prove the intention And this is the core issue at the moment In these cases.

00:28:55: you said that there were a number of genocide cases brought before the court in, and in the past among them.

00:29:02: The international special tribe units for Rwanda And Of course all the proceedings dealing with the Yugoslavian wars.

00:29:12: but convictions because for genocide have so far been rather rare at least Because it's not common crime and the courts has required very strict standards to establish all important intent to commit genocide that you were talking about just a second ago.

00:29:30: So based on the case law, it would be actually out of question for Israel to be convicted wouldn't?

00:29:37: Well... You'd think so!

00:29:41: But your absolutely right to say that the standard is being set extremely high by the courts.

00:29:47: It's a criminal law standing and you have to prove beyond reasonable doubts that an individual or members of the government, people responsible because it's a criminal law issue.

00:30:03: It is about what individuals do.

00:30:07: So the court has said well the standard proofs are very high and as result its been difficult to prove Now whats happening now?

00:30:16: Is there number states saying you know what?

00:30:22: We need to broaden the scope of this convention.

00:30:26: There's a lot of horrific things going on around the world, we don't have a tribunal capable of resolving them... ...we need to bring more cases within the concept of genocide than we had in the past and In order to do that.. ..we need lower the standard of proof And we need to broaden the range of evidence That can be brought to prove the intention.

00:30:51: It's still about intention but because now it is, and this was a unique thing of Myanmar in Israel cases no longer just particular individuals whether state has complied with its obligations to prevent and punish genocide.

00:31:14: Normally,

00:31:15: as you said in the Rwanda Tribunal or other tribunals have gone deeply into the facts to work out whether this criminal standard of proof has been met.

00:31:26: Now they're avoiding these external tribunal.

00:31:29: going straight through a court that is not a criminal law Court doesn't in independent criminal law tribunals.

00:31:39: It can't do cross-examine, grahamination.

00:31:41: it can go and do fact finding on the ground.

00:31:44: its dependent upon what UN commissions tell other facts of the ground.

00:31:50: And this is opening up a very different kind scenario whereby A number states This way gets very interesting.

00:32:03: we have The Netherlands Germany Denmark, United Kingdom and Canada who are arguing in the Myanmar case.

00:32:17: by extension this will also apply to Israel.

00:32:20: They say well look we may not be able

00:32:23: to prove

00:32:24: that relevant people had a subjective intention of destroying the Rohingyas or Palestinians But we can infer it by the fact, for example that a lot of children are being killed or a lot people have been displaced.

00:32:42: And they're urging the court to say well look at these inferential circumstances and draw a conclusion from them about what their intention must've been to commit genocide.

00:32:57: So you could see how this sort of broadens.

00:33:04: And when the courts doesn't know the facts on the ground, except what's presented to it by UN agencies.

00:33:12: It doesn't have the capacity to look at all the counterfactual circumstances right?

00:33:23: So if the court goes down this route and we don't know whether the Court will because the Myanmar decision hasn't been made yet or come out in October But if it goes down this route of broadening the definition and lowering sort-of standard of evidence, then that will be a test applied in the South Africa Israel case.

00:33:50: And than is becomes much more possible that Israel will infact be held to have failed its obligations to prevent genocide.

00:34:03: So we had whole new situation here.

00:34:08: this Myanmar case somehow lays the groundwork for a conviction of Israel later

00:34:14: on,

00:34:16: or it could be late.

00:34:19: But via these Myanmar cases but with the active assistance of states like as you said Germany and other Western nations.

00:34:27: is that what's taking place?

00:34:28: And why are they doing

00:34:29: it?".

00:34:30: It's super question!

00:34:32: We don't know the answer except we understand that a lot of this has been driven actually by the Netherlands.

00:34:43: We have very, let's say activist legal department within our Ministry for Foreign Affairs in The Netherlands.

00:34:53: they reached out to a number other states including Germany and Canada and UK to join them putting their view into the courts And it is a view represented broadly in the academic world those who have, let's say a more progressive activist perspective.

00:35:12: is that in order to and it's in a sense understandable you know.

00:35:16: In order to bring into account the perpetrators of these gross crimes and abuses of international law we need to give the ICJ International Court of Justice a broader jurisdiction.

00:35:32: this has partly got to do with the failure of really convicting criminals, or war crimes.

00:35:41: Crimes against humanity genocide and so forth.

00:35:44: So the courts people are looking now more to the ICJ as being The mechanism To bring to justice these These gross violations.

00:35:54: but the danger of doing that is You're you're empowering a court Really?

00:36:01: It's not equipped to do As I said there's no criminal court doesn't have the rules and the procedures really that it needs.

00:36:12: So, It becomes a very political kind of process.

00:36:18: so I think The European states that i mentioned put this view to the court And they did This before the South Africa case Really was up in running.

00:36:31: but They put...I Think many Of them had the Israel case In mind.

00:36:37: They were seeking the court to make a ruling that would lay the foundations for Israel hearing, Israel case.

00:36:47: To be more likely to convict Israel On other side.

00:36:51: we know Islamic states very much have their agenda.

00:36:56: Why is the organisation of Islamic cooperation effectively funding the Gambia?

00:37:03: to bring a case against Myanmar.

00:37:05: Why is it effectively funding South Africa and Iran, Qatar many of these states?

00:37:12: To bring the case against Israel?

00:37:14: well we know they have a political agenda when it comes to Israel so it's very transparent.

00:37:20: um So I think its fair uh and reasonable influence to say that many of those States are really using the Myanmar.

00:37:34: I think when it comes to Canada, for example or Germany... ...I don't think they realized necessarily the implications of this approach.

00:37:43: They call it the holistic approach to genocide and of course Germany has a big interest in this because Germany's facing its own allegations brought by Nicaragua.

00:37:57: that is responsible for enabling Israel to commit genocide.

00:38:01: so If the court is going to broaden their definition, it's gonna be more likely that Germany itself will be held... ...to have infringed its obligations under the Genocide Convention.

00:38:13: So goes completely against the interests of Germany.

00:38:16: and yet they're the ones who are participating in putting this case?

00:38:20: It's quite strange actually!

00:38:24: Who was doing the case for example let say with Germany?

00:38:31: who work on the Myanmar case, for example.

00:38:35: Somewhere within the foreign ministry?

00:38:37: or who is responsible?

00:38:39: As far as I'm concerned Germany has never... The official German position.

00:38:43: so far at least they don't come to a conclusion that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza

00:38:51: And that's correct.

00:38:52: If they're working or laying the groundwork in order to get a conviction of Israel because of genocide, so is it one hand not doing... Not knowing what the other hand is doing?

00:39:02: Who?

00:39:03: who is doing the work actually?

00:39:05: So officially decision is normally made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether or not to participate in certain legal proceedings.

00:39:13: The Myanmar case would have been a decision made We're going back now to, two thousand twenty four.

00:39:23: To make an intervention in those proceedings and they would have done that on the advice of their legal department.

00:39:31: so The lawyers are asked to advise.

00:39:35: you know should we do this?

00:39:37: What is the case?

00:39:38: well what is in Germany's interests?

00:39:42: And what does international law tell us about the Law Of Genocide?

00:39:46: and it seems And I'm not saying that the German lawyers had an intention to use this, to influence the Israel case.

00:39:59: But it's highly possible.

00:40:02: they were influenced by it but either way there seemed to have persuaded the foreign minister.

00:40:19: you'll find that most of the documents are signed by, uh...the main legal advisers within the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

00:40:28: I don't know off top my head if in Germany's case it was a legal adviser.

00:40:32: It certainly is the Dutch document which was signed by the lead lawyer on this case.

00:40:40: The same in Canada.

00:40:42: so i assume its the same in Germany.

00:40:44: and to be honest when this happens The political leaders often don't understand the implications of what they're doing.

00:40:54: And I suspect that in late to two thousand twenty four when Germany put this position too, the court and the Myanmar case They may not have realized What the implications would be for Germany?

00:41:07: In the Israel case and the case of Nicaragua against Germany.

00:41:15: But clearly, there is an influence.

00:41:17: It IS going to be highly influential and it would very interesting to know what the position of German government at this moment?

00:41:28: By the way, the Nicaragua case... ...is on the agenda in court next couple weeks with hearings.

00:41:36: Germany's arguing that Nicaraguan doesn't have a case.

00:41:40: Germany shouldn't be in courts.

00:41:42: you know, this whole thing should be thrown out but we'll see if the court accepts that argument.

00:41:50: Going back to the Myanmar case... You said the ruling is expected to be given in October?

00:41:58: What's your guess?

00:41:59: will the court go down that road in direction of a more holistic interpretation of the genocide convention?

00:42:06: or what do you think?

00:42:09: Look personally I we will find a majority of judges who will support the conclusion that Myanmar is committing genocide.

00:42:20: We don't know because, exactly but we know.

00:42:25: uh...the decision has been prepared.

00:42:28: at the moment I think if you look at the judges on the courts You look at the questions that they ask during illegal proceedings, if you look their background.

00:42:39: The things there have said in past about genocide and so forth I'm pretty sure it will be... No i am not pretty sure but think is a strong chance That majority of the fifteen judges or least eight Will come down And many these are academics So they tend to have very progressive, almost an activist view of the law and a view of court's jurisdiction.

00:43:12: They're looking to broaden it.

00:43:18: so I think looking at those judges is quite possible.

00:43:23: we'll see judgment that lays foundation for in a very academic way of broadening this concept of genocide.

00:43:35: And if so, obviously that's going to influence future cases.

00:43:41: But would it be necessary?

00:43:42: In the Myanmar case To broaden approach?

00:43:46: Yeah That is good question.

00:43:48: I don't think so necessarily.

00:43:54: I'm not an expert on the Myanmar Case but It would seem to

00:44:00: me

00:44:01: quite possible.

00:44:03: There was a UN fact-finding mission on this case at the time of the conflict, they reached the conclusion there are reasonable grounds to conclude that Myanmar saw certain elements within the Myanmar leadership and army had an intentional genocide intent.

00:44:25: quite possible, that fact-finding commission did a more rigorous examination of the facts than is the case in the Israel situation where the UN bodies haven't had access to the facts on the ground.

00:44:42: So I think it would be possible even with out existing jurisprudence concerning genocide defined Myanmar guilty.

00:44:53: so Again, I think it will be driven perhaps not so much by whether that conflict can be... That decision could be resolved.

00:45:05: but looking more generally.

00:45:06: Well what do we want with this genocide convention?

00:45:10: Where are we heading?

00:45:12: and the idea of a court should look at factual things which start to look like genocide because its our only forum for determining on the issue, what's becoming our only forum?

00:45:30: Well definitely a very fascinating and interesting point.

00:45:33: And we'll definitely keep following up this.

00:45:36: on this I'd like to take the opportunity too.

00:45:39: thank you Mr.

00:45:40: Tucker.

00:45:40: i think our views had the opportunity to learn quite a bit from our conversation today.

00:45:45: so Thank You Very Much Once Again For Taking The Time To Be Our Guest.

00:45:50: It's A Pleasure!

00:45:54: Happy to talk about these very, very interesting developments.

00:45:59: And finally for you the viewers as always at this point here's our request if you enjoyed this video please give it a thumbs up leave a comment in the comments section below or subscribe.

00:46:11: There you will find daily news,

00:46:17: current reports and extensive research-based background analysis on the history of the MENA region.