Legal implications for other countries and the United Nations

You are not logged in. If you are a subscriber, please Login to access. If you are not a subscriber, you can contact us for a rate quote at subscribe@iareporter.com. Alternatively, you can sign up to receive free email headlines here.

Legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and unlawful occupation

Policies of Israel negatively impacted legal status of occupation of Palestinian territories

Discriminatory policies violate CERD, and prolonged annexation deprives Palestinians of right to self determination

Court finds that prolonged occupation and settlement policies undertaken by Israel violate rules of international law

Israel considered to be an occupying power in Palestine, with the applicable law including human rights law, humanitarian law and general customary international law

Methods of proof can include reliance on reports from independent and official bodies

Court exercises power to determine material, temporal and territorial scope of questions raised in the request

Compelling reasons raised by participants to refuse jurisdiction fail to find traction before the court

Court has jurisdiction to give advisory opinion on legal questions

Background: United Nations General Assembly requests advisory opinion on Israel-Palestine conflict

Parties are told to bear their own costs, but Ghana has to reimburse 50% of the claimant’s share of the costs of arbitration

Counterclaim was based on unfounded assumption that Ghana’s conduct was lawful

As Directives have not yet been enforced, claimants cannot claim resulting damages

Ghana’s unitisation directives breached domestic law, and thus the contract’s stabilisation clause

Local court decisions on validity of unitisation Directives under domestic law have no res judicata effect in the circumstances

Contract’s stabilisation regime would not be breached by any state conduct, but requires proof of non-compliance with domestic law

Background: Ghana’s decision to unify two oilfields encounters opposition from the claimants

Claimant’s contract is mutually terminated after civil war breaks out; but promised payments never materialize

Majority says that costs should follow event and requires unsuccessful claimant to bear (very modest) costs of the case

Tribunal declines jurisdiction over LIDCo since it is not party to the BIT

Request for mediation – and a threat of arbitration – satisfy cooling-off period under BIT

On merits, majority sees no breach by Libya due to actions or omissions of LIDco

Majority also rejects claims that posit Libya’s own liability, including in relation to failure to avert civil war

Claimant appears to argue that MFN could import umbrella clause into BIT; tribunal – for unclear reasons – sometimes describes this as an attempt to import arbitration clause into contract

Archives