article · London Review of International Law
As Israel’s assault on Gaza continues into its tenth month, the language of legality has become the dominant frame of popular and political discourse. Public interest in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and its proceedings is at a level perhaps never seen before; so too in the International Criminal Court (ICC), its Prosecutor at once urged to act and condemned for inaction, his recent request to judges for the issuing of arrest warrants both celebrated and damned. International law has emerged as the global vernacular of both condemnation and legitimation; few commentators today speak of Gaza or Palestine without invoking the language of il/legality. What are we to make of this groundswell of interest in and resort to international law? What is the significance of the current series of ICJ proceedings and popular engagements with them? How should we think about the clamorous championing of The Hague and its institutions as the harbingers of justice? The editors of the London Review of International Law invited our advisory editors and others in the academic community of critical scholars to reflect on these questions.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1093/lril/lrae012
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.