'Israel’s manifold violations' requires an ICJ opinion

Andreas Zimmerman takes the floor. A Professor of Public, Public International and European Union Law at the University of Potsdam and Director of the Potsdam Centre of Human Rights opens with the following remarks:

• There are no compelling reasons for the court to decline to issue the requested opinion.
• The court’s determinations are both urgent and relevant, given Israel’s manifold violations of peremptory norms of international law, which continue and intensify on a daily basis.
• The court clearly has jurisdiction to present the requested opinion.
• The questions posed by the general assembly are clearly legal in character and has the court has repeatedly confirmed in its jurisprudence.
• The fact that the questions may have political implications is irrelevant and does not bar the court from fulfilling its judicial function.
• There is no reason for the court to decline to issue the requested opinion.
• Manifold reasons exist that an answer by the court to these questions is of utmost importance to the general assembly, the UN at large and the international community.