Kenneth Rothformer director of Human Rights Watchwrote recently in Guardian that, until very recently, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other major international tribunals approached the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank predominantly from the perspective of international humanitarian law (ius in bello), trying to avoid or at least reduce illegal violence during its development: provocation of famine and disease, bombing of civilians, schools and hospitals, appropriation of land, natural resources and homes, failure to fulfill obligations of the occupying power towards the occupied population, expulsion of the population, genocide.
Although they had already identified war crimes and crimes against humanity on multiple occasions, these courts had not until now examined the legality of the occupation itself. That is what the ICJ has now dedicated itself to, this time from the perspective of international law (ius ad bellum) that distinguishes when a war can be legal or not—for example, in the cases of resistance to the invader and self-defense. In your advisory opinion of last July 19the court ruled that, under international law, Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal. It has been recognized, Roth concludes, that both international humanitarian law and international law have been violated. This means, we add, that the actions carried out during the so-called “wars” are illegal, but starting those “wars” was already illegal in itself. Hence Israel is spoken of as roguestate or delinquent state. Furthermore, these are not “wars”, but rather an occupation carried out by an expansionist State in accordance with the project of Zionism and, to this day, unpunished. Impunity, which lasts for decades, is a moral stain that global citizens are becoming more aware of every day. The UN Special Rapporteur is requesting the suspension of Israel as a member of the General Assembly.
The ICJ advisory opinion confirms that Israel carries out a illegal policy of occupation of Palestinian territories that violates the fundamental right to self-determination, the prohibition of racial segregation and apartheid and the prohibition of annexation of territories by force. It therefore rules that Israel must abandon as soon as possible occupied territories and provide reparations to affected populations.
Shortly after, on September 13, the United Nations General Assembly moved in the same direction and ordered Israel to withdraw from the occupied areas within one year: the Israeli occupation is an annexation by force, an aggression. With this historic vote, the General Assembly has opted—with a majority of 124 votes that includes Spain—to apply international law consistently to Israel. The majority is produced thanks above all to the votes of the so-called Global South, which undoubtedly leads the defense of international law.
The 14 negative votes correspond, among others, to Israel, the United States, Hungary and Argentina, while the 43 abstentions come from the United Kingdom, Germany, Poland, Italy, Switzerland and the Netherlands, among others. These results reflect the interests, ultimately economic, pursued by those who oppose international law—and even allow themselves to ignore it—for decades. It should be noted that the lack of consensus in the vote of the EU countries shows its little relevance and, above all, that its trumpeted defense of democratic values and the law is, to say the least, incoherent – remember Ukraine – if not imaginary.
Both positions, that of the TIJ and that of the UN General Assembly, emphasize that all states are obliged to No recognize the illegal situation of occupation, No contribute, either directly or indirectly, to its maintenance, and to cooperate with due diligence with the UN and international law to put an end to it and ensure the rights to Palestinian self-determination and territorial integrity. Furthermore, States not only they must comply but also make sure to enforce the advisory opinion. This demand is not a voluntary act of charity; is imperative, not only towards Palestine but also towards the entire international community as a whole (an obligation erga omnes, “towards all”).
Independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council explain that States, to ensure that they comply with the decisions of the ICJ and the UN General Assembly, They must now review their diplomatic, political and economic ties with Israel, including business, financial, pension fund, NGO and academic relations. that may have some link with the occupied territories. In practice, it is difficult to see the difference between establishing relations with entities in Israel and having them with entities in the Palestinian territory that it illegally occupies, since the Israeli State has integrated de facto the latter in their own economy and applies Israeli laws in the occupied territories. Besides, Neither the European states nor the EU itself differentiate, or do so only in part, between both entities.although the UN Security Council established this differentiation already in 2016 in its Resolution 2334. In this context, as pointed out by the former senior UN Human Rights official Craig Mokhiber in Guardianthe latest advisory opinion of the TIJ elevates to international legal obligation the positions held by the non-violent and anti-racist BDS movement since its founding in 2005: Boycott, Divestment and Sanction.
The obligations derived from the TIJ advisory opinion involve all levels of the administration and, therefore, also to the universities. As an administration that has autonomy and is part of a State that subscribes to international law, the Spanish university has to expressly align itself with it. From now on, it has the responsibility to frame all its activities and relationships within the primary obligation of not cooperating with the violation of international law and, furthermore, of actively preventing it. You must discontinue all collaboration with universities, entities and companies that facilitate, tolerate or benefit from the occupation. To this end, the call “essential element clause“, whose purpose is to ensure compliance with international legality in the ethical code of research and in all academic and economic relations with universities, entities and companies. Inaction is no longer possible.
The above has two consequences: first, universities are responsible for requesting information from the companies with which they collaborate, including financial entities, given that, as published at the time, The Countryamong the 10 European banks that finance the most companies in the occupied territories the two largest Spanish banks are listedSantander and BBVA, which also finance weapons manufacturing companies that Israel is using in its current aggressions, according to the recent Center Delàs report. Second, the same review obligation affects those EU-funded research projects in which there is collaboration with Israeli universities, whether “Horizon“or those of the so-called European Defense Fund. These European calls already include the essential clause on respect for international law and human rights but, in the height of hypocrisy, many universities do not apply it and allow research consortia with Israeli entities. Some European universities, doubting the ethics and legality of this behavior, have called on the European Commission to impose the effective application of its own regulations. Some, including a few Spanish ones, apply the essential clause internally. Meanwhile, the German commissioner Christian Ehlercoordinator in the European Parliament of Industry, Research and Energy and member of the Popular Group, calls these claims “anti-Semitic.”
All of the above leads us to question this custom of not linking the financing of education and research to the ethical obligation—also legal from now on—to contribute with all available means to ending the occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. .
The university already knows what it has to do. Will it? After months of coordinated work in 46 of the 50 public universities of the Spanish State, The University Network for Palestine will dedicate its first state meeting to these issues, organized at the Faculty of Geography and History of the University of Barcelona on November 28 and 29, 2024.. The program and registration form can be consulted at https://www.redxpalestina.org/menú-ruxp/jornadas-ruxp).
*Signing on behalf of the University Network for Palestine (RUxP):
Pamela Stoll (Univ.d’Alacant, main author)Joaquín Urías (Univ. of Seville)Manuel Delgado (university of Barcelona)Teresa Jurado (UNED professor)Juan Escribano (Cathedr. Univ. of Córdoba)Julia María Carabaza (University of Granada professorship)Adela Muñoz (University of Seville cathedral), Alfonso Gutierrez (Univ. of Valladolid professorship), Olga Canto (Univ. of Alcalá professorship)Ines Monteira(UNED cath.), Jose Manuel Quesada (University of Seville professorship), Eva Aladro (Cathedr. Univ. Complutense), María José Lera (Univ. of Seville)Nadia Hindi (University of Granada)José Antonio Gómez (University of Murcia)Cristina García (Univ.d’Alacant),José García Lomas (Univ. of Valladolid),Ignacio Mendiola (UPV-EHU), David Penafuerte (Univ. of Jaén), Inmaculada Álvarez (Univ. Complutense), Enrique Javier Diez (Univ. of León), Maria Dolores Vazquez (Univ. of Santiago de Compostela), Rosario Leñero (Univ. of Huelva), Durán Helper (Univ. of Malaga)Leonor Sáez (University of Murcia)Angeles Ten (Complutense University)Sara García Cuesta (Univ. of Valladolid), Javier Barreda (Univ.d’Alacant)Mar Rodríguez (Univ. da Coruña)Daniel Jimenez (Univ. of Zaragoza)Laia Haurie (Polytechnic University of Catalonia)Javier Esteban (Univ. Miguel Hernández)Jordi Moreras (Univ. Rovira i Virgili)Rafael Grande (Univ. of Malaga)Guillermo Muñoz (Univ. of Valencia)Mercedes Martin (Univ. Complutense), Laura Feliu (Autonomous University of Barcelona), Israel Morales (Univ. d’Alacant), Margarita Asensio (Univ. of Almería), Feliciano Castaño (Univ. Oberta de Catalunya), Juana Moreno (Univ. of Cádiz).
#University #International #Law #Israel
