My country disowned me after Israel–Gaza ruling - Sebutinde

[u/posixthreads]

https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/my-country-disowned-me-after-israel-gaza-ruling-sebutinde-5153060

[u/posixthreads]

This is a shocking report, that has gained traction and there are now calls to remove or disqualify the vice-president of the ICJ. I cannot emphasize enough how insane the supposed statements being made are:

I have a very strong conviction that we are in the End Times....I want to be on the right side of history.

This is going to completely throw Gambia v. Myanmar and South Africa v. Israel into disarray. The Gambia case is going to set a precedent for South Africa's case, which means she could very well be poisoning that case as well to weaken South Africa's case. As to why she would openly make such a statement, I'm not going to speculate here due to the subreddit's rules. There have been previous articles examining the idea that she may be taken her opinions directly from her church elders. There are also allegations that she has outright plagarised her court opinion. This was all speculation, even if likely, but this is the first time we've seen hard evidence of her bad-faith behavior, a clear insight into her actual thinking.

As for the process of removing a judge from the ICJ, this paper provides an excellent overview of the process. There are two outcomes:

1. Removal: The other elected judges of the ICJ must unanimously vote to have her removed. If this doesn't work, then the court is truly poisoned. This is as disqualifying a statement as it can get.

2. Disqualification: That means they remain members of the court, but they may no longer participate in any proceedings where the bias likely exists. Previous attempts to do this have occurred in other cases, but these have all been a result of past legal work or declarations of the judges.

This is the first time in history we've seen a judge openly express a personal bias, a religious one at that, outside of a legal opinion. The disqualifying statement here was made at a private event for a prominent Pentecostal Church in Uganda, of which Judge Sebutinde is known to be a prominent member of.

There is currently an effort to have her disqualified if not removed. I would argue she needs to be removed as soon as possible before the oral proceedings of Gambia v. Myanmar. More so, she needs to be voted out of her position as Vice-President of the ICJ.

[u/FerdinandTheGiant → u/posixthreads]

This is a shocking report

That is an understatement. My jaw literally dropped reading:

“There are now about 30 countries against Israel…the Lord is counting on me to stand with Israel”

I’ve seen criticism of Sebutinde's dissenting opinion and personally recall her interpretation of uti possidetis juris in the context of the mandate being pretty ridiculous, but this report is gobsmacking.

It’s also fills me with a sense of irony considering how often I’ve seen aspersions cast towards judges like Salam simply because he is Lebanese. Now we see genuine disqualifying beliefs and it’s not coming from the side often pointed to.

[u/FerdinandTheGiant → u/[deleted]]

She essentially follows Bell and Kontorovich’s interpretation of UPJ and their position is not normative nor particularly conservative.

There’s been a decent bit written about their and Sebutinde’s positions so I’ll suggest David Kretzmer’s and/or André de Hoogh’s piece on the subject.

[u/GlassBit7081 → u/FerdinandTheGiant]

Thank you so much! First I've seen of Kretzmer's argument. However, it's scarily weak. In summary, Israel AND all states involved in the West Bank dispute do NOT declare borders. AND because Israel has never formally declared it wants ALL of the UTJ territories it's claims are weakened. So...if Israel did formally declare those borders its UTJ case would be stronger.

[u/FerdinandTheGiant → u/GlassBit7081]

So...if Israel did formally declare those borders its UTJ case would be stronger.

Had Israel done so in 1948 (or as Hoogh argues, 1923) his argument would be somewhat weaker, but as he notes in his conclusion, for the current situation:

There is no precedent for application of the uti possidetis principle when not only the newly established State itself does not claim that it is inheriting the colonial borders but shows in its actions that it does not regard those borders as its borders.

That a State’s appetite for territory grows, when 20 years after independence it expands its control beyond its independence borders, can in no way change the fact that it did not claim to have inherited the borders of the colonial power that ruled the territory before it became independent.

[u/GlassBit7081 → u/FerdinandTheGiant]

Agreed. There are some other issues with this, which I fear are taking us too far away from Intl Law and towards politics. Israel DID declare sovereignty of all of Jerusalem, consistently and explicitly, and extended authority there as quickly as practicable (except, HILARIOUSLY on the Temple Mount). So, their case is PARTICULARLY strong in Jerusalem, EXCEPT for the Temple Mount.

[u/FerdinandTheGiant → u/GlassBit7081]

Israel DID declare sovereignty of all of Jerusalem, consistently and explicitly

Can you expand on this? Kretzmer explicitly addresses Jerusalem in his argument showing explicitly that they did not claim sovereignty over the territory, citing in part a May, 1948 UN Security Council meeting, so I’m wondering where your position comes from.

[u/FerdinandTheGiant → u/[deleted]]

I’m not particularly sure what I am to glean from this.