And no this isn’t a cultural thing. I’ve had offers and rejections that were similarly courteous and respectful, beyond the “actually could we keep your application for a wee while just in case”. I think it is particularly this person. Or the DoJ as a whole. Lisa go out! It’s a Saturday night!

If your job is to recruit, obviously there will be rejections, and obviously those happen and we are all adults, but disrespect - again, from a public servant - of that note should probably be a red flag that not only is this not the right place, but that the civil service isn’t doing well.

Thank you so much for such fascinating and expert insight! This was much welcome news after the difficult years we’ve all had with ICL and enforcement. It was great to hear most states agreeing to move forward! I was expecting more head-butting, but January will be an important step!

… from the South African case before the ICJ? This has been a long conversation in the last year or so and there could be lack of political courage. /end

Interesting to hear that Mladic was not the case it is meant to be, considering its massive influence on contemporary ICL. But the argument remains on genocidal context and not “pockets” of genocide. Gaza being an enclave reminds a lot of Srebrenica. But what about the West Bank being omitted…

It’s fair to see the little progress we have made in the enforcement of ICJ interim measures in Gaza. And there is no case *yet*. The ICC has not charged the Israeli officials with genocide. The threshold of intent is scaring prosecutors away from adding to the genocide caseload.

Prof Sadat says that the intense focus on genocide - there are CAH too. “Why are we still fighting on whether there is a genocide in Gaza?” She continues that she doesn’t believe in a hierarchy of crimes - and the ICJ has succeeded to create a strong jurisprudential basis. CAH are still atrocities.

We need to provide states with the provision to support state enforcement of those treaties. African states demanded resources to even comply with those obligations. Think of the legal structure that needs to exist in terms of law enforcement, courts, etc. Inequality stops it.

Afghanistan for instance is very supportive of the apartheid campaign - the delegation isn’t the Taliban, but the previous government’s representatives. Everything we know and see is represented on the structural negotiations of this treaty. Civil society groups could / should coalesce.

Argentina apparently gave an awful statement on gender in the 6th Committee this week. I will try to find it. Morbid curiosity. Inter-state discussions are always tense. Prof Sadat also mentions the need of including gender apartheid and environmental harm, because the world moves.

There is no jurisprudential consensus between states on what such vague language means in terms of accountability, which is really crucial to have agreement on how we define special crimes, intent, and applicability. And amendments to the Rome Statute are really hard to bring forward.

Monitoring committees allow states to pick up a language (like on gender apartheid) and understand it in a way that is applicable. Experts are already present and have already conducted research, which is more of an academic exercise. “Other inhumane acts” in an interstate treaty is difficult.

Russia’s opposition to CAH started in WW2. This is also very consistent for them. Their own history is enough for them to justify (see: Russia, Israel). Because they were once victims, they can’t be actors of further accountability supposedly. The motivations for the objections should be… easy.

“The United States are consistent under the Biden admin and the Trump admin, they are opposed to it”. Interesting Q as how states opposing this draft CAH treaty justify their position, considering they can always argue the law on subject-matter or territorial jurisdiction.

Remember the debate around the crime of aggression.

Some states were initially skeptical about the idea of a treaty adding to the Rome Statute. But it is clear that the Rome Statute is not enough. It’s clear the ICC is embattled and limited. It’s clear that it needs to cite substance. Definitions are never a bad idea in an evolving legal field.