Third Party Obligations and World Ordering in the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE
Style
Format
Third Party Obligations and World Ordering in the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory
German Yearbook of International Law, Online First : pp. 1–28 | First published online: June 24, 2025
Additional Information
Article Details
Pricing
Author Details
Prof. Dr. Heike Krieger, Freie Universität Berlin Van't-Hoff-Straße 8 14195 Berlin, Germany
- Professor for International Law at Freie Univeristät Berlin
- Search in Google Scholar
Abstract
Abstract: The rise of mega-political cases before the ICJ stands in stark contrast to the symptoms of decline of the Liberal International Order. The Article explains this phenomenon by analysing how processes of world ordering and legal ordering are entangled. For this purpose, it assesses the way in which the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory engages with third party obligations. The Article demonstrates how the legal conceptualisation of such obligations contributes to world ordering processes and highlights the limits of such an approach. Thereby, it offers both a doctrinal analysis of central concepts, such as the duty of non-recognition and non-assistance, and an assessment of broader trajectories of the development of the international (legal) order.
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Heike Krieger\nThird Party Obligations and World Ordering in the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory | 1 | ||
| I. Introduction | 1 | ||
| II. World Ordering and Legal Ordering | 3 | ||
| A. Revolutionary and Evolutionary World Ordering | 3 | ||
| B. Third Party Obligations as a Means of Legal Ordering of International Relations | 5 | ||
| 1. Third Party Obligations in a Decentralised Legal System | 6 | ||
| 2. Third Party Obligations as a Counterhegemonic Instrument | 10 | ||
| C. Obstacles to World Ordering Inherent in the Advisory Opinion | 18 | ||
| 1. The Relevance of the Doctrinal Sources of Third States’ Obligations | 18 | ||
| 2. The Meaning of the Obligations Involved | 22 | ||
| 3. The Scope of the Pertinent Obligations | 23 | ||
| III. Conclusion | 26 |