Read on Twitter
It's worth reading Judge Péter Kovács's dissenting opinion in the #ICC case on whether "Palestine" is a state, because here's a legal expert who isn't @EVKontorovich criticising the court's reasoning.
Some scathing words here: "However, in the Palestinian situation, [the Prosecutor] apparently does not deem it important to distinguish what is binding from what is only a recommendation, a suggestion, or an opinion."
"I cannot accept and even less understand why a Chamber should accept as given... a statement on the existence of ‘the territory of the State’ when... it is premature to speak of a full-fledged ‘State’ and of ‘the territory of the State’."
"To accept as determinative a unilateral statement concerning the exact demarcation of a territory that is known to be the object of a very slowly progressing and frequently suspended series of negotiations, would have required at least an explanation."
"In the present ruling, I am unable to identify the actual rules of international law and the actual legal approach of the UNO regarding Palestine’s statehood and its territory and borders on which the Majority Decision is based." #ouch
Here the presiding judge accuses the ICC prosecutor of contradicting herself and literally applying double standards...
Devastating: the ICC presiding judge accuses the majority of a "refusal to deal with international law", relying on "too simple a justification".
