New Judge Elected To The International Court Of Justice
Mahmoud Daifallah Hmoud was appointed following a parallel and independent voting process in the General Assembly and Security Council, conducted by secret ballot.
He will fill the vacancy left by former ICJ President Nawaf Salam of Lebanon, who resigned in January to become the country's Prime Minister.
He will hold office for the remainder of Judge Salam's term, which was set to end on 5 February 2027.
Absolute majority
Mr. Hmoud was the sole person vying for the slot and he was nominated by Egypt, Jordan, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden.
Candidates must secure an absolute majority in both the General Assembly and the Security Council, or 97 and eight votes respectively.
All 15 Council members voted in his favour while in the General Assembly, which comprises all 193 UN Member States, he received the support of 178 out of 181 countries who took part in the vote. Three countries abstained.
Mr. Hmoud has been Jordan's Ambassador to the UN in New York since September 2021 and his other postings include Legal Adviser and Director of the Legal Department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
He is also a former chairman and member of the International Law Commission, a UN expert body that promotes the development and codification of international law.
The 'world court'
The ICJ, informally known as the 'world court', settles legal disputes between UN Member States and gives advisory opinions on legal questions that have been referred to it by UN organs and agencies.
It has been in the spotlight following an advisory opinion, issued last July, which said that Israel's occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, 'is unlawful.'
Last month, hearings began into Israel's continuing restriction on the work of UN and other international agencies operating in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT).
The Court is composed of 15 judges who serve nine-year terms. Five seats come up for election every three years and there is no bar on consecutive terms.
Judges are chosen on the basis of their qualifications, not their nationality; however, no two judges can be from the same country.
The ICJ was established in June 1945 and is based at the Peace Palace in The Hague, a city in the Netherlands.
It is one of the six main organs of the UN – alongside the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Trusteeship Council, and the Secretariat – and is the only one not based in New York.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Letters to Editor: cycleways, Gaza, mining
Today's letters to the editor include criticism of Cr Jim O'Malley over reactions to a cycle way, the war in Gaza, and discussion around Santana mining. Councillor O'Malley and his lost anatomy Poor Councillor Jim O'Malley. He's facing a life ahead of him without an important part of his anatomy, his backside, having "worked his arse off" on the Albany St cycleway committee, only to have people, God forbid, disagree with him. Spectacularly tone deaf to the pleas of the business community's complaints of more disruption, the loss of 68 valuable parking spaces on campus, and the cycling community stating they don't need or want it, Jim seems mainly offended by the suggestion that his conclusions might just be wrong. He is so aggrieved he's threatening to give up politics. Yeah, right. It may be time for the councillor to realise that committees alone don't make a bad idea good, and that the everyday operation of the city may be more important than costly and damaging leisure and vanity projects for a tiny minority. Ian Pillans Dunedin Stand up Wars may be far away, but their repercussions will affect us now and into the future. New Zealand's mild remonstrances on the Gaza genocide do not reflect our strong stances in the past, where we stood up against South African apartheid, nuclear armed ships and the white supremacy of the mosque attacks. We are allowing Israel to destroy a people and a culture. It is conceivable that a Trump-like character might arise in Australia in the future, who fancies a bit of choice agriculture land across the Ditch. Who will protect us — not the US, whose leader covets Greenland among other places? There are alternatives. The Hague Group is standing up for international law with real action. BRICS is an alternative non-aligned trading group that is trying to bypass the extractive US dominated WTO and IMF. These countries are not perfect, but why are we following the US which continually dabbles in regime change and endless failed wars around the world? Peace and diplomacy are rhetorical flourishes at the moment. Building trust is a hard road which requires listening to the perspectives of others, especially when they are in danger of annihilation, and not pattern-matching our own misconceptions. Ann Mackay Oamaru [Abridged — length. Editor.] Take the offer Cole Martin lists many reasons why there's no peace in the Holy Land (14.7.25) but omits the most obvious. Solely blaming a supposed "system of domination," he ignores critical historical context, ongoing Palestinian violence, and Palestinian leadership's refusal to recognise Israel. The West Bank was occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. Israel gained control of it in a defensive war. Large portions of it are governed by the Palestinian Authority (PA), created through the 1990s bilateral Oslo Accords with the goal of establishing a Palestinian state. Those hopes were dashed when Palestinian leaders rejected generous Israeli peace offers that would have given them control over most of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Instead, they launched the Second Intifada, a wave of terrorism that left thousands dead and hardened attitudes on both sides. The violence and restrictions Martin laments largely stem from these actions. Palestinians were offered more opportunities for sovereignty than other Middle Eastern minorities. Yet, they squandered each one, attempting to destroy Israel rather than pursuing statehood. Real change can only come when Palestinians choose to stop the violence, recognise Israel, and build the state they were repeatedly offered. A. Levy Dunedin [Abridged — length. Editor.] Historic tale of ironclad ship battle questioned Tuesday's Today in History (8.7.25) describes in 1862 the use of the novel gun turret on USS Monitor being used "to good effect in a decisive battle with CSS Virginia". Wrong on both counts — the ships fought at close range for three hours, inflicting minimal damage on each other, then returned to their bases. Ineffective and indecisive, black-powder muzzle-loaders firing solid shot achieved little in this historic engagement, the first between ironclad vessels. Richard Lea Clough St Leonards [Today In History is based on old ODT files and is updated annually. We welcome reader feedback on omissions and possible inclusions.] Debt and Covid response RE R John Wilson's letter (15.7.25), what would he have done different so as not get into debt? Remembering every other country spent their way out of Covid. Henry Schakelaar Dunedin Saving our species but losing land Wonderful to read of the "Tireless work to save our native central species" (Central Otago News 3.7.25). Sad then to also read of the proposed Santana Minerals Open cast gold mine with its blasting, digging, trucking and carting away of hillsides to leave "open pits a kilometre wide and hundreds of metres deep" across a swathe of our outstanding natural landscapes (Opinion ODT 9.6.25). Sad as we'll lose the stunning landscape many thousands of tourists fly in to admire or millions of people view on TV. Expecting a second series of the murder mystery drama A Remarkable Place to Die to be shot here from November till the end of April, will be so incongruous with the noisy polluting open-cast gold mining and the arsenic and cyanide that'll leak from the unlined toxic sludge dam it leaves. Or maybe they can incorporate this and the waste of native habitat for native birds and lizards in the series for the German, American, Australia and New Zealand audiences? Lynne Stewart Earnscleugh Overseas plunder RE Gavin Dann's letter (18.7.25), His points re jobs, boost to local economy etc, are valid, to a degree. However, if one is to google Tui Mine Tailings Dam, there is a prime example of the perils of an overseas company mining in New Zealand. Since the days of flax and kauri, we have allowed Australian interests to plunder our resources with little return and no regard for the consequences. By all means, allow mining but not at the expense of our environment, and pay well for the privilege. Jerry Lynch Mosgiel
RNZ News
7 hours ago
- RNZ News
Which countries recognise the state of Palestine. What would statehood look like?
By Zena Chamas Moroccans chant slogans and wave the Palestinian flag during a march to express their solidarity with the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, in Rabat on 19 July, 2025. Photo: AFP As of 2025, there are about 147 countries that officially recognise the state of Palestine. France is set to recognise a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly in September, bringing the total to 148 countries. Currently, there is no Palestinian state. Instead, there are the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which include Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Only the Jewish state - Israel - exists. Some Palestinians live in Israel as citizens. Others live as refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. As of March 2025, the state of Palestine has been recognised as a sovereign nation by 147 of 193 member states of the United Nations, about 75 percent. In 2024, a group of UN experts called on all United Nations member states to recognise the State of Palestine, in order to bring about an immediate ceasefire in Gaza amid the Israel-Gaza war. Since then, nine countries - Armenia, Slovenia, Ireland, Norway, Spain, the Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and Barbados - formally recognised the State of Palestine. Most of the Middle East, Africa and Asia recognise Palestinian statehood. On Thursday (local time), France's President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would recognise a Palestinian state in hopes it would bring peace to the region. In response to Macron's move, Netanyahu said that such a move "rewards terror and risks creating another Iranian proxy". "A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel - not to live in peace beside it," Netanyahu said in a post on X. In other parts of Europe, Slovenia, Malta and Belgium are yet to recognise Palestinian statehood. Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, Japan and South Korea also do not. Australia does not recognise a Palestinian state. On its website, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade states Australia is: "Committed to a two-state solution in which Israel and a future Palestinian state coexist, in peace and security, within internationally recognised borders." Public outrage as the Palestinian death toll has climbed has been followed only slowly by official statements from governments reluctant to criticise Israel - until now. The Australian Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) has argued that Australia symbolically recognising Palestinian statehood would mean "establishing a formal diplomatic relationship with Palestine". Australia currently has an ambassador to Israel, but only a representative to Palestine. In recent comments, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese did not refer directly to recognising Palestine, but pointed to Australia's long-standing ambitions around recognition. "Recognising the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a state of their own has long been a bipartisan position in Australia," Albanese said. "The reason a two-state solution remains the goal of the international community is because a just and lasting peace depends upon it. "Australia is committed to a future where both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples can live in peace and safety, within secure and internationally recognised borders." Last year, Foreign Minister Penny Wong indicated Australia was considering recognising a Palestinian state as part of a peace process, rather than at the endpoint. This week, Australia joined 27 other countries demanding an immediate end to the war. In November 2024, Australia voted in favour of a draft United Nations resolution recognising "permanent sovereignty" of Palestinians and the Golan Heights to natural resources in the Occupied Territories for the first time in more than two decades. A total of 159 countries voted in favour of the draft resolution in a UN committee, including Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, France, Germany and Japan. The State of Palestine was formally declared by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) on 15 November, 1988. It claims sovereignty over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. According to senior lecturer in law at the University of South Australia, Juliette McIntyre, a state has certain defining features under international law. These features include a permanent population, a determinate territory, an "effective" government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. "In some ways, the most important thing is recognition by other states - this enables entering into diplomatic relations, and membership of international organisations," McIntyre said. She added that the governance of a Palestinian state could look like "free and fair elections for all Palestinians exercising their right of self-determination". "It is up to the Palestinian people to elect their representatives and decide on their form of governance," she said. Recognising a Palestinian state could mean the beginning of a "two-state solution" where both a Jewish state and an Arab state would exist at the same time. "A two-state solution requires two states. Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory has been found to be unlawful. "Recognition of Palestine is not hostile to Israel, Israel is an established state and recognition of Palestine does nothing to impact on this," McIntyre said. The two-state solution is still widely regarded by world leaders as the only way to end the conflict, but is not as popular in Israel and parts of the occupied Palestinian territories. "The territorial integrity of both states should be respected, and new borders could only come about by treaty agreement between both states," McIntyre said. What are the one-state and two-state solutions? Photo shows Benjamin Netanyahu stands in front of two Israeli flags. Benjamin Netanyahu stands in front of two Israeli flags. On Wednesday, Israel's parliament, the Knesset, voted 71-13 in favour of annexation of the West Bank, raising questions about the future of a Palestinian state. The non-binding vote was backed by members of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing coalition, as well as some opposition members of parliament. In a recent post on X, Netanyahu said: "Let's be clear: the Palestinians do not seek a state alongside Israel; they seek a state instead of Israel." Both Netanyahu and other members of Israel's parliament have shown their lack of support for a two-state solution. This year, the UN, which largely supports a two-state solution, will hold an international conference on the question of Palestine and the implementation of the two-state solution in New York from 28 to 29 July. The United States has opted out of attendance. - ABC
Scoop
11 hours ago
- Scoop
Afghanistan: UN Report Documents Human Rights Violations Of Forced Returnees
KABUL/GENEVA (24 July 2025) – A UN report published today documents the cases of individuals involuntarily returned to Afghanistan who have experienced serious human rights violations on the basis of their specific profiles. These violations have included torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary arrest and detention, and threats to personal security – at the hands of the de facto authorities. Since 2023, large numbers of Afghans have been involuntarily returned to the country, primarily by Pakistan and Iran. The report issued by the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and the UN Human Rights Office found that groups of people returning to the country who were at particular risk of reprisals and other human rights violations by the de facto authorities were women and girls, individuals affiliated with the former government and its security forces, media workers and civil society. It is based on interviews conducted in 2024 with 49 individuals involuntarily returned to Afghanistan. 'Nobody should be sent back to a country where they face risk of persecution on account of their identity or personal history,' said UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk. 'In Afghanistan, this is even more pronounced for women and girls, who are subjected to a range of measures that amount to persecution on the basis of their gender alone.' Interviewees affiliated with the former government and its security forces revealed that they had been forced to go into hiding since returning due to fears of reprisals, despite the de facto authorities' publicly stated amnesty for all who had previously fought against them in the conflict. For women involuntarily returned to the country, the situation is particularly severe. One former TV reporter who left the country after the takeover in August 2021 due to earlier Taliban threats described how, after her involuntary return to Afghanistan, she and other women in similar situation found there that there were no job opportunities, no freedom of movement, and no access to education beyond grade six for women and girls. 'I can unequivocally state that I am effectively under house detention,' she said. A former government official described how, after his return in 2023, he was detained for two nights in a house where he was severely tortured, including beatings with sticks, cables and wood, waterboarding, and was subjected to a mock execution. His leg was broken as a result. Sending people back to a country where they are at risk of persecution, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, enforced disappearance or other irreparable harm, is in violation of the principle of non-refoulement and a serious breach of international law. The report urges States to ensure that individualised assessments are carried out before any return of persons to Afghanistan, and to refrain from returning any individuals at real risk of serious human rights violations to Afghanistan. States are also called on to increase the availability of safe pathways for Afghans at risk to leave the country and to remain safely in their territories without fear of detention for purposes of expulsion. Many hundreds of thousands of Afghans have been involuntarily returned from Pakistan and Iran, placing enormous pressure on the limited resources available to the de facto authorities to address their needs more generally. The report also recommends that States increase financial support to ensure that sustainable reintegration is possible. 'While the de facto authorities have responded in a coordinated manner to the significant influx of returnees to Afghanistan in recent years, more needs to be done to ensure that all returnees are included in society and have their human rights upheld,' said Roza Otunbayeva, the Secretary-General's Special Representative for Afghanistan and head of UNAMA. 'The participation of all Afghans in the social, political and economic life of the country is critical to the development and prosperity of the nation. I urge the de facto authorities to uphold their obligations under international law and their responsibilities to the Afghan people.'
