There was public outrage over claims that Syria’s new leadership blurred Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock in a photograph during her visit.
I don’t see the problem. Germany itself has removed statues and images of Adolf Hitler from public spaces. Is Baerbock comparable to Hitler? Of course not. However, Baerbock facilitates Israeli war crimes, human rights violations, and other breaches of international law.
She cannot claim ignorance—”Ich habe es nicht gewusst”—because, in 2005, she completed a one-year master’s program in public international law at the London School of Economics. Additionally, I informed her directly in an email dated October 17, 2024, that Israeli settlements constitute war crimes. Here is the content of my email:
Dear Minister of Foreign Affairs,
I came across a Twitter clip where you defend Israel’s actions 100%. In the following, I will demonstrate that Israel is violating fundamental norms of international law and committing at least one war crime: the settlements.
Jus Cogens
While the number of jus cogens norms is limited, and some are contested, several are widely accepted. These include the right to self-determination and the prohibitions on war, genocide, apartheid, slavery, and torture. In 2024, the Netherlands testified before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that jus cogens norms include the right to self-determination and the prohibitions on genocide, war, torture, slavery, racial discrimination, and apartheid. Israel violates some of these norms. The Netherlands acknowledged that Israel breached two: the right to self-determination and the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by military force (see attachment). In its 2024 advisory opinion, the ICJ pronounced the right to self-determination as a peremptory norm.
International Law Commission (ILC)
In 2022, the ILC published the report on jus cogens norms. It outlined two key responsibilities for states when these norms are violated: (1) states must not legalize the violation, and (2) they are obliged to cooperate to end the violation.
The ILC recognizes that the right to self-determination is a jus cogens norm. This is illustrated by an example of a UNHRC resolution that states:
“Calls upon all States to uphold their obligations of non-recognition, non-aid, or assistance concerning the serious breaches of peremptory norms of international law committed by Israel, particularly regarding the prohibition of acquiring territory by force, to ensure the exercise of the right to self-determination. It further calls upon States to cooperate in bringing an end to these serious breaches through lawful means and to reverse Israel’s illegal policies and practices.”[1]
Of the UNHRC’s 47 members, only three voted against: the United States, Britain and the Marshall Islands. Other western states, like Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, and France were among the countries that voted in favor.
Cooperation
The ILC provided examples of cooperation, including the condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine through UN resolutions and the expulsion of Russia from the UNHRC. The ILC suggested, in vague terms, that sanctions for violations of jus cogens norms are appropriate. This vagueness, partly enabled by Western countries, allows some states to avoid taking action.
Western Hypocrisy
Western nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel argue that there is no duty to cooperate to end violations of jus cogens norms. It’s worth examining why these Western countries take this stance, which could stem from a desire for power—such as the U.S.’s violations of jus cogens norms during its invasion of Iraq—or a broader intention to support Israel.
The 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion
The ICJ declared that all countries must:
- Not recognize the legality of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.
- Ensure they do not contribute to the situation created by the construction of the wall.
- Ensure that Israel complies with International Humanitarian Law.
- Cooperate to end the illegal situation caused by the wall.
- Help Palestinians realize their right to self-determination.
The 2024 ICJ Advisory Opinion reiterated the above and added that Israel must dismantle all settlements, return property to Palestinians or compensate them, and allow them to return to the West Bank, where they were displaced in 1967. Israel is required to end the illegal occupation as soon as possible. The court affirmed that Palestinians have a right to a state across the entire occupied territories. The court also concluded that Israel violates the prohibition of discrimination. Third states are obligated to end all diplomatic and economic relations with Israel that sustain the occupation.
Dutch Position in 2024
The Netherlands made clear before the Court that:
- All states must cooperate to end the consequences of serious violations of jus cogens norms.
- States may not recognize the unlawful situation created by such breaches.
- States must not assist or aid in maintaining the illegal situation, which includes not undermining sanctions imposed by others.
- States, even if not directly affected, have the right to take countermeasures against the offending state.
- All states and international organizations may demand cessation of unlawful acts, guarantees of non-repetition, and reparations.
The Fourth Geneva Convention
Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring its own population into the territory it occupies, a rule designed to protect the demographic integrity of occupied territories. Israel’s settlement policy violates this provision, as affirmed by the ICJ and international bodies.
Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions
Protocol I defines “grave breaches,” or war crimes, including the transfer of civilians to occupied territories.
The Rome Statute
The Rome Statute criminalizes both direct and indirect population transfers, acknowledging the impact of policies designed to change the demographic makeup of occupied territories. Israel did not sign the Rome Statute or Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions because both treaties criminalize the establishment of settlements in occupied territory.
German law
Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) punishes anyone, who, in connection with an international or non-international armed conflict, “transfers, as a member of an Occupying Power, parts of its own civilian population into the occupied territory”.[2]
Dutch International Crimes Act (WIM)
The Dutch International Crimes Act is an Implementation of the Rome statute in the Dutch law. It punishes the transfer of civilian population into occupied territory with a maximum of life sentence. The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands considers that “the transfer by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
Customary Law and the Red Cross
The Red Cross has consistently interpreted Article 49(6) of the Geneva Convention as prohibiting population transfers, reaffirming this in their respected commentary. They highlight that these actions violate international humanitarian law and cause long-term harm to the local population. According to the Red Cross, there exists a customary rule that prohibits the transfer of populations in occupied territory, and it is also considered a war crime (Rule 130 of customary law).
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1991)
Article 22(2)(b) of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind considers “the establishment of settlers in an occupied territory and changes to the demographic composition of an occupied territory” as an “exceptionally serious war crime”. From the commentary:
“Establishing settlers in an occupied territory represents a particularly grave abuse of power, especially as it may conceal an intent to annex the occupied land. Altering the demographic composition of an occupied region, in the Commission’s view, is such a severe act that it could be likened to the gravity of genocide.”
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)
Under Article 20(c)(i) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “[t]he transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a war crime.
International Military Tribunal for Germany
Count 3(J) (War Crimes) of the indictment in the case of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal for Germany in 1945 provided, under the heading “Germanization of Occupied Territories”:
“In certain territories purportedly annexed to Germany the defendants methodically and pursuant to plan endeavored to assimilate those territories politically, culturally, socially and economically into the German Reich. The defendants endeavored to obliterate the former national character of these territories. In pursuance of these plans and endeavors, the defendants forcibly deported inhabitants who were predominantly non-German and introduced thousands of German colonists.
This plan included economic domination, physical conquest, installation of puppet Governments, purported de jure annexation and enforced conscription into the German Armed Forces.
This was carried out in most of the occupied countries including: Norway, France … Luxembourg, the Soviet Union, Denmark, Belgium, and Holland.
…
These acts violated Articles 43, 46, 55, and 56 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were committed and Article 6(b) of the Charter [jurisdiction over war crimes].”[3]
International Military Tribunal for Germany
In its judgment in the case of the Major War Criminals in 1946, the International Military Tribunal for Germany stated:
“Hitler discussed with Rosenberg, Göring, Keitel, and others his plan for the exploitation of the Soviet population and territory, which included among other things the evacuation of the inhabitants of the Crimea and its settlement by Germans.
A somewhat similar fate was planned for Czechoslovakia by the Defendant Von Neurath, in August 1940; the intellegentsia were to be ‘expelled’, but the rest of the population was to be Germanized rather than expelled or exterminated, since there was a shortage of Germans to replace them.
The Tribunal concluded that ‘the Leadership Corps [of the Nazi Party] was used for purposes which were criminal under the Charter and involved the Germanization of incorporated territory’. The Tribunal held the accused Rosenberg and Von Neurath responsible for their role in the policies of ‘Germanization’.”[4]
In conclusion
In 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled that settlement construction must stop immediately and that existing settlements must be dismantled, that the illegal occupation must end quickly. Israel’s settlement policy constitutes a war crime, and under international law, those responsible must be prosecuted. While Israel’s security may be part of Germany’s Staatsräson, this does not mean that Germany should aid Israel in violating fundamental principles of international law. By analogy, one might have moral and legal obligations to a brother, but if that brother is a serial killer, there is no duty to assist in committing or concealing his crimes. Therefore, Germany should uphold its legal obligations.
Sincerely,
Mihai Martoiu Ticu
Annalena Baerbock is fully aware that Germany violates its legal obligations under international law. By continuing to support Israeli policies, she willingly aids and abets Israel’s violations of international law. Instead of reforming German policy to align with legal and ethical standards, Germany chose to defund two Jewish Israeli human rights organizations that expose these violations.
Given this context, it is reasonable to question Baerbock’s presence in public imagery. My proposal is to publish a blurred image of her accompanied by the hashtag #EraseAnnalenaBaerbock.
Notes:
- [1] A/HRC/RES/49/28. ↑
- [2] Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, § 8(3)(2). ↑
- [3] International Military Tribunal for Germany, Case of the Major War Criminals, Indictment, 20 November 1945, Count 3(J), pp. 63–65. ↑
- [4] International Military Tribunal for Germany, Case of the Major War Criminals, Judgment, 1 October 1946, pp. 238, 261, 295 and 335. ↑
Be First to Comment