{"id":111136,"date":"2023-01-13T14:47:02","date_gmt":"2023-01-13T13:47:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.justiceinfo.net\/?p=111136"},"modified":"2024-02-05T17:20:16","modified_gmt":"2024-02-05T16:20:16","slug":"the-occupation-of-palestine-back-before-the-icj-why","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.justiceinfo.net\/en\/111136-the-occupation-of-palestine-back-before-the-icj-why.html","title":{"rendered":"The occupation of Palestine back before the ICJ, why?\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On New Year's Eve, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution<\/a> seeking a new opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the consequences of Israel\u2019s occupation of Palestinian territories. The resolution, adopted by a short majority of 87 countries, asks for an advisory opinion, that falls into that \u00ab nebulous \u00bb category of international law decisions that are not legally binding, says Mike Becker<\/a>, assistant Professor of Law at Trinity College Dublin, in this new podcast produced by our partners from Asymmetrical Haircuts. This came just two days after a new hard-line Israel government was nominated, stresses Eliav Lieblich<\/a>, Professor of International Law at the Tel Aviv University. Both worrying about how and when the ICJ will answer to the multiple series of questions asked by the UN General Assembly. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

To listen to the podcast, click on the \"play\" button below:<\/em> <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n