Judge Julia Sebutinde is set to assume the presidency of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), marking another milestone in her groundbreaking career as well as a significant shift for the court.
The Ugandan jurist, who recently made headlines for her robust defence of Israel against South Africa’s genocide allegations, will take the helm following current President Nawaf Salam’s departure.
Salam has been appointed Prime Minister of his native Lebanon by new president Joseph Aoun, whose election, backed by the US and Saudi Arabia, represents a major blow to Iran and its proxy Hezbollah.
Sebutinde’s recent ruling on the Israel-Hamas War has particularly resonated in international legal circles. She dismissed South Africa’s requests for temporary injunctions to halt the Gaza war, asserting that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people is fundamentally political rather than legal in both its nature and historical context, and therefore falls outside the court’s purview.
I resent the outlet’s labelling of the judge as “pro-Israel”, because that implies that the other judges are “anti-Israel”. The job of the judges is not to be pro or anti whatever country. It is to be judges and interpret the law to the best of their ability.
One more thing that the article fails to do is explain what the ICJ president, giving the impression that the president has the power to shift the opnions of the court in this or that direction. For those interested, here is what the president does.
In effect, the article, as written, politicizes the ICJ and pushes a narrative that legal proceedings against Israel’s conduct have nefarious “anti-Israel” motivations. Fuck. That. When the ICJ ruled against Ecuador, it was not “anti-Ecuador”. Israel is not special.
The judge is very obviously extremely biased in favor of Israel.
I think you are misusing the word “bias”. Has she shown any systematic partiality for Israel? Has she expressed over and over again that she is willing to bend the rules for Israel? Is there an inclination?
One opinion does not indicate bias. It is one opinion for a specific issue at a specific time. Bias would be something that happens over and over and shows some kind of inclination. US policy is biased in favour of Israel, while Iranian policy is biased against it. Irish policy, for example, is neither.
Because be very careful here: the same logic applies for the judges who argued to accept South Africa’s case. If “bias for/against” means “they took a favourable/disfavourable position”, then by that definition, the ICJ majority is …anti-Israel. Which is of course exactly the line that the Israeli Apartheid establishment is pushing, that the world is somehow out to get Israel.
Yes she voted in favor of Israel for every resolution. Even when the Israeli judge voted against Israel. She is more biased than the Israeli ICJ judge.
In the article you posted elsewhere in the thread she is quoted as saying:
I think we would both agree with Mark Kersten, cited in the article, that she’s wrong about that.
It explains however why she would vote the way she did. She is of the opinion that the court does not have jurisdiction, and the rest of her behaviour follows from that. That again does not constitute bias, it constitutes a consistently held (albeit wrong, according to Mark, me, you, and the court majority) opinion.
Listen, I am standing up for her not because she’s right, but because I think that politically this narrative of pro- and anti- Israel justices serves the Israeli Apartheid establishment in undermining the authority of the court.
Every conflict is a political conflict. And in such a conflict it is possible for involved parties to break international criminal law or international law. By her logic no genocide can be subject to the ruling of the ICJ and the laws to prevent genocide are worthless, because genocide will always be an escalation of a political conflict.
Then I am of the opinion she is biased
Lol, you aren’t engaging with my argument at all. What even is the point of this interaction?
You had no argument. Calling her bias an opinion changes nothing.