Here's what I don't understand. Aren't the judges on the ICJ comprised of genocide experts? Aren't they subject to the exact same pressures and incentives as the experts? Aren't the experts and the ICJ judges using the same definitions and considering the same evidence? What makes the predictions markets so confident that the ICJ judges won't act the same way as the experts?
The “experts” are highly ideological NGOs, the ICJ people are legal people who have gone through law school and so on. America’s ICJ judge was appointed by the Biden administration. These are legal professionals, not humanities academics and NGO people. Think of them as more like Supreme Court justices. Most of what the ICJ does is adjudicate disputes between states. It’s not an inherently woke body like a human rights organization or humanities academia.
The best reference class for the ICJ is the ICC, which notably did NOT charge Netanyahu and Gallant with “extermination”, a crime with a way lower threshold than genocide. Furthermore, these NGOs and academics are against the standard set in the ICJ precedent. Ireland wants to overturn the precedent. This was a 15-2 precedent in Croatia v Serbia, that dolus specialis, genocidal intent, must be the ONLY REASONABLE INFERENCE from the code of conduct to infer genocide. So basically, these are different groups of people with different incentives, and if you look at ICJ precedent as well as what the ICC has done, you see that the ICJ is likely to rule no.
The people in the ICJ have serious legal training. The people in NGOs and humanities departments are political actors that have in many cases explicitly called for overturning ICJ precedent. The Irish position is aligned with those of the NGOs and cited the dissent in a previous ICJ case.
I think there a distinct possibility that the market are predicting the court's decision not based on whether they think there was a genocide or not, but simply under the assumption that the judges fear Trump making their life hell with sanctions (think sanctions on Francesca Albanese).
If Israel *wanted* to commit genocide, they could probably do it in weeks. Somehow they are doing such a poor job of it that the population of Gaza keeps growing. In real genocides, don’t population numbers decline?
Correct. Of course there are deaths and those who leave, but “Palestinian genocide” was pushed as a political issue for years before 10/7. A look at the data shows the claim was bogus then, and it’s still bogus even post 10/7.
Here's what I don't understand. Aren't the judges on the ICJ comprised of genocide experts? Aren't they subject to the exact same pressures and incentives as the experts? Aren't the experts and the ICJ judges using the same definitions and considering the same evidence? What makes the predictions markets so confident that the ICJ judges won't act the same way as the experts?
The “experts” are highly ideological NGOs, the ICJ people are legal people who have gone through law school and so on. America’s ICJ judge was appointed by the Biden administration. These are legal professionals, not humanities academics and NGO people. Think of them as more like Supreme Court justices. Most of what the ICJ does is adjudicate disputes between states. It’s not an inherently woke body like a human rights organization or humanities academia.
The best reference class for the ICJ is the ICC, which notably did NOT charge Netanyahu and Gallant with “extermination”, a crime with a way lower threshold than genocide. Furthermore, these NGOs and academics are against the standard set in the ICJ precedent. Ireland wants to overturn the precedent. This was a 15-2 precedent in Croatia v Serbia, that dolus specialis, genocidal intent, must be the ONLY REASONABLE INFERENCE from the code of conduct to infer genocide. So basically, these are different groups of people with different incentives, and if you look at ICJ precedent as well as what the ICC has done, you see that the ICJ is likely to rule no.
The people in the ICJ have serious legal training. The people in NGOs and humanities departments are political actors that have in many cases explicitly called for overturning ICJ precedent. The Irish position is aligned with those of the NGOs and cited the dissent in a previous ICJ case.
An interesting thesis.
I think there a distinct possibility that the market are predicting the court's decision not based on whether they think there was a genocide or not, but simply under the assumption that the judges fear Trump making their life hell with sanctions (think sanctions on Francesca Albanese).
Unlikely. By the time the ICJ decides the case, Trump will be gone.
If Israel *wanted* to commit genocide, they could probably do it in weeks. Somehow they are doing such a poor job of it that the population of Gaza keeps growing. In real genocides, don’t population numbers decline?
Although I agree that Israel isn't committing genocide, the population of Gaza has, in fact, fallen since October 7.
Correct. Of course there are deaths and those who leave, but “Palestinian genocide” was pushed as a political issue for years before 10/7. A look at the data shows the claim was bogus then, and it’s still bogus even post 10/7.
Superb.
yo stevey how you make that T so BIG?
In settings
LOVING THE PROFILE PIC (where in settings? have you a screenshot?)