On 5 March 2025, Sudan instituted proceedings against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding alleged violations by the UAE of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). The case concerns allegations that the UAE is supporting Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces against the Masalit group in West Darfur.
Genocide
CfP GYIL; BIICL Training Programme; CfP Business and Human Rights Workshop; CfP Criminal Justice Conference; Nuremberg Academy Lecture; CfS Green Deal Seminar; CfP Genocide and the Ocean; CfP Use of Biometrics by Armed Forces; CfS Ocean Governance for a Sustainable Future; International Law Breakfast Briefing – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro
1. Call for Papers: The German Yearbook of International Law (Vol. 68, 2025). The call for contributions to the “General Articles” section of Volume 68 (2025) of the GYIL is now open. Submissions can be on all topics and fields of interest that are relevant to public international law. Papers submitted should be in English, be between 10,000-12,500 words (inclusive of footnotes), and must conform with the GYIL style guide (available here). Submissions, including a brief abstract, keywords, statement of affiliation, and confirmation of exclusive submission, should be sent by 30 September 2025 to the Managing Editor of the GYIL via e-mail: yearbook {at} wsi(.)uni-kiel.de. More information can be found here.
2. BIICL Training Programme 2025. The British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) is now accepting registrations for its programme of short courses for 2025. Courses include: Foundations of public international law; Public international law in practice; Climate change law: Climate change litigation; Artificial intelligence governance; Cultural heritage law; Business and human rights; and, Law of the sea. BIICL is also offering two summer schools on Law and Technology (30 June- 4 July) and on Public International Law (14-18 July). These courses are led by BIICL’s team in collaboration with external partners, combining academic expertise with practical insight. Discounts are available for group bookings and individual members of BIICL. Scholarships are available for individuals and NGOs – terms and conditions apply. More information can be found on the BIICL website.
Gaza, Genocide and the Discursive Limits of International Law – EJIL: Talk! – Go Health Pro
Image: Qassem, a Palestinian shepherd from Umm al Fugara, is being investigated by Israeli military police and army for land ownership, after a settler wrongfully accused him of assault. Philippe Pernot.
Whether within the lexicon of international law or the parlance of everyday conversation, invoking ‘genocide’ is pregnant with explosive and abrasive intent. Lawyers and activists alike employ the word’s singular expressive power to condemn and to galvanise. We have seen this in the case of Israel’s assault on the Gazan population over the last year. Initially, genocide was uttered in a number of circles in slightly faltering tones, but it is now used with increasing confidence and conviction in diverse circles even in the face of trenchant opposition. While practices of indescribable pain have become normalised, speakers of the law have tried to resist this trend through creative and abundant genocide anachronisms and neologisms. We understand ‘genocide anachronisms’ as adjacent terms and approaches that were either subsumed or overlooked in the drafting of the 1948 genocide definition. While these broad conceptualisations were capable of capturing the variegated elements of collective annihilation, we suggest that ‘genocide neologisms’ speaks to more recent efforts to reinvigorate the potentiality of genocide, whether as a non-legal scholarly mode of analysis or as an attempt at norm creation. Thus, when trying to characterise the carnage that is Gaza today, for many, it is no longer enough to speak of genocide. Instead, we can see a proliferation of killing (‘cide’) words to try to capture the variegated contours of genocide. Well-worn terms sit alongside newer variants, all jostling to articulate the nature of Israeli criminality. We identify these ‘cides’ as: spacioicide, domicide, ecocide, politicide, economicide, sociocide, scholasticide, memoricide, medicide, Gazacide and related terms such as ‘unchilding’, and Nakba.
Part of the reason for resorting to this cacophony of criminalisation is to undercut anxieties around the purported limitations and rigidities of genocide, especially in relation to intent and its focus on physical destruction. Rather than rejecting the law or the notion of genocide then, we understand these efforts as ways to build on traditional renderings of genocide and make these resonate with the situation in Gaza today. Such efforts perhaps speak to a widespread need by legal and non-legal scholars alike to have their respective fields be seen as relevant in the face of such suffering. It is striking that genocide and its related ‘cides’ often crowds out other paradigms, especially focused on the situation in Gaza as one of numerous crimes against humanity.
