SS: This is potentially quite a consequential move or an indication of shifting allegiances and interests, with additional western countries breaking ranks and joining Ireland, Belgium and Spain in intervening in the case against Israel. Netherlands may just be a result of the new government, but at least in Iceland’s case i’d suggest it’s as a consequence of recent Israeli policy, given their reasoning relies on a parliamentary vote 3 years ago.
> Iceland argued that the determination of genocidal intent should not be limited to situations where genocide is the only reasonable inference from the acts committed.
>Instead, Iceland said, the existence of other possible intentions alongside genocidal intent should not prevent the court from determining that genocide has occurred.
Iceland is essentially admitting the evidence doesn’t meet the legal standard for genocide, so their solution is to simply lower the standard. If you have to argue that ‚other reasonable explanations‘ should be ignored, you aren’t proving a crime—you’re just engineering a foregone conclusion.
Imagine a murder trial where the prosecution says, ‚Sure, there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the defendant was there, but we should just ignore that so we can get the conviction we want.‘ That’s Iceland’s logic here. Clown show.
Zatoecchi on
The more the merrier.
Leave A Reply
Du musst angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
3 Kommentare
Iceland Government statement: https://www.government.is/diplomatic-missions/embassy-article/2026/03/12/Iceland-intervenes-in-South-Africa-case-at-the-International-Court-of-Justice/
ICJ press release: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20260312-pre-01-00-en.pdf
SS: This is potentially quite a consequential move or an indication of shifting allegiances and interests, with additional western countries breaking ranks and joining Ireland, Belgium and Spain in intervening in the case against Israel. Netherlands may just be a result of the new government, but at least in Iceland’s case i’d suggest it’s as a consequence of recent Israeli policy, given their reasoning relies on a parliamentary vote 3 years ago.
E: Iceland submission https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20260311-int-02-00-en.pdf
Netherlands Submission https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20260311-int-01-00-en.pdf
> Iceland argued that the determination of genocidal intent should not be limited to situations where genocide is the only reasonable inference from the acts committed.
>Instead, Iceland said, the existence of other possible intentions alongside genocidal intent should not prevent the court from determining that genocide has occurred.
Iceland is essentially admitting the evidence doesn’t meet the legal standard for genocide, so their solution is to simply lower the standard. If you have to argue that ‚other reasonable explanations‘ should be ignored, you aren’t proving a crime—you’re just engineering a foregone conclusion.
Imagine a murder trial where the prosecution says, ‚Sure, there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the defendant was there, but we should just ignore that so we can get the conviction we want.‘ That’s Iceland’s logic here. Clown show.
The more the merrier.