We don't claim that this would permit the successful judicialization of reparation claims. But we hope to weaken the too convenient argument according to which past wrongs deemed lawful in the past could not create a duty to reparation in international law due to the doctrine of intertemporal law.

By analysing the various interpretations of the doctrine, both in scholarships and at the ICJ, we show that intertemporal law could be interpreted so as to support, rather than hinder, reparations claims through the notion of continuing violation of international law.

Instead, we defend that the conservative and static approach to the doctrine — which relies on the assumption that no duties to reparation could arise if past acts were deemed lawful when they occured — has been overemphasized at the expense of a more emancipatory and dynamic interpretation.

Against a certain trend within the discipline of international law, we argue that intertemporal law should not be interpreted as an unequivocal obstacle to reparation claims.

Some Arab countries have a rather similar flag inspired from the flag of the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire. It has become associated with Pan-Arabism so you can find a similar combination of colours and forms in the flags of Sudan, Jordan etc

After almost 4 years here I can conclude that I've lived in a constant state of culinary incomprehension

I'm currently working a little bit on Carl Schmitt who died at the same age (96). Some of those racists can really enjoy a depressing longevity sometimes

Thank you! May I be added please?

Absolutely. But in this case I don't think they're even good legal arguments that necessitate to be rejected on political/ethical grounds. But yes, taking indeterminacy seriously doesn't mean giving echo to every 'valid' legal argument whatever their political content.

I think those two dimensions are interrelated. It is through inaccuracies (Gaza wasn't occupied anymore after 2005, annexation might be lawful, confusion b/w state and government, no discussion on self-determination) that they are able to frame Gaza as having a complicated and disputed legal status

It has already been done for Al Bashir and Putin (two heads of state whose countries aren't ICC members as well) where the Court made it clear that such immunities don't apply.

I'd like to be added please!

But to be fair, one of her points is to stress that it is wrong to consider IL merely as an academic field as it is most of all a practice which, in that regard, is not a small thing. In that sense she's mainly concerned about how the contextualist approach has been very narrowly received in IL.