Juris Gentium Law Review https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/JGRL <p>Juris Gentium Law Review (JGLR) is a student-run journal found in 2012 in association with the Community of International Moot Court (CIMC), Faculty of Law, Universitas Gadjah Mada. Since then, we have annually published print journals written by law students worldwide. See our archives dating back to 2012 in our old website <a style="color: #8b0000;" title="JGLR OJS 2 Old Website" href="https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/jurisgentiumlaw/index" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.&nbsp;</p> en-US jglr.ugm@gmail.com (Felicia Andryanti) jglr.ugm@gmail.com (Rachelle Tan (Ama)) Tue, 18 Mar 2025 23:56:59 +0700 OJS 3.1.2.0 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 60 The Ongoing Nakba: Towards a Legal Framework for Palestine https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/JGRL/article/view/20428 <p>The editors of Juris Gentium Law Review thank the generosity of Rabea Eghbariah for agreeing to have this piece included as a foreword to the Special Issue on Palestine and International Law. This article was originally written for the online blog of Harvard Law Review and was published by The Nation on November 21, 2023.</p> Rabea Eghbariah Copyright (c) https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/JGRL/article/view/20428 Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0700 When “Genocide” and “Apartheid” Just Don’t Quite Explain It: A Review of “Toward Nakba as a Legal Concept” by Rabea Eghbariah https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/JGRL/article/view/21186 <p>It is an inevitability that, after enduring the test of societal changes throughout the years, the inadequacies of established legal concepts and frameworks in serving the interests of the society which they are intended to govern are revealed. Such is the case when it comes to the existing international legal concepts of genocide, apartheid, and, to a lesser degree, occupation. In relation to the high purpose of (a majority of) the international community to alleviate the suffering endured by one of its most prominent constituents, the people of Palestine, the paper being reviewed places them under impeachment, exposing how their utilisation in describing the Palestinian experience of suffering in the Nakba has resulted in an&nbsp; incomplete picture of the Nakba, an <em>à la carte, </em>and, ultimately, obfuscatory, view of it. This then resulted in the limiting of options, under international law, for Palestinians who wish to see to it that the tree of their intergenerational suffering be cut down to its roots.</p> Muhammad Raihan Sjahputra Copyright (c) 2025 Juris Gentium Law Review https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/JGRL/article/view/21186 Mon, 07 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0700 Examining Israel's Attacks on Abrahamic Heritages in Palestine: Theological and Legal Perspectives https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/JGRL/article/view/19963 <p>The Palestine-Israel conflict is one of the most complex humanitarian conflicts in modern history. Israel's attacks on Palestine have caused devastating impact not only on human lives but also on historical, cultural, and religious heritages, including Abrahamic heritages, which has precious value to Jews, Christians, and Muslim communities. This article explores the doctrines of Abrahamic religions toward the protection of cultural and religious heritage, the international humanitarian law regulations regarding the protection of cultural and religious heritage during armed conflicts, and the strategies to restore damaged cultural and religious heritage. This article aims to raise public awareness regarding the importance of Abrahamic heritages in Palestine as an integral component of human patrimony and civilization. The literature study method is used to understand the theological and legal foundations underlying the importance of safeguarding and preserving cultural and religious heritage, as well as finding solutions and practical recommendations for the preservation of cultural and religious heritage in conflict areas.</p> Putri Widhyastiti Prasetiyo Copyright (c) 2025 Juris Gentium Law Review https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/JGRL/article/view/19963 Mon, 21 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0700 Navigating Orientalism in International Law: Weaponization of Linguistic Bias to Justify the Use of Force in Israel-Palestine https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/JGRL/article/view/19256 <p style="font-weight: 400;">This paper explores the intersection of Orientalism and international law, focusing on how linguistic bias is weaponized to justify the use of force in the Israel-Palestine conflict. By analyzing the deployment of Orientalist tropes and language in legal and political discourse, the study reveals how entrenched stereotypes about the East serve to legitimize asymmetrical power dynamics and military interventions. It scrutinizes official statements made by the Israeli government to demonstrate the perpetuation of a narrative that frames Palestinian resistance as terrorism while portraying Israeli actions as self-defense. This linguistic framing not only dehumanizes Palestinians but also distorts the principles of international law, undermining its role in achieving a just and equitable resolution. Through this examination, the paper calls for a critical reevaluation of the language used in international law to foster a more balanced and fair approach to conflict resolution.</p> Farisha Schezwen Copyright (c) 2025 Juris Gentium Law Review https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/JGRL/article/view/19256 Mon, 02 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0700 From Condemnation to Complacency: A Critical Review of the UN’s Evolving Response to Israeli Settlements in the West Bank (2005–2024) https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/JGRL/article/view/20003 <p>After the Second Intifada ended in 2005, developments of illegal Israeli settlements intensified in the self-governing Palestinian territory of the West Bank. The settlements displaced homes, harassed native villagers, restricted movements and obstructed access to critical resources, further damaging Palestinian livelihoods in the area. For the past two decades, these settlements have been widely condemned by international actors, notably by the United Nations (UN), which has stated in numerous official resolutions and statements that they violate international law. However, the UN’s response has changed significantly between 2005 and 2023, reflecting shifts in global politics and challenges in compelling compliance with international law.</p> <p>This paper reviews how the UN’s response to the settlements has evolved, dividing it into two main phases. The first phase (2005–2012) was characterized by strong condemnation through resolutions and official statements that rejected the settlements. In the second phase (2013–2023), the response shifted toward a more passive and symbolic stance. This study relies on a historiographical and critical review of official UN documents and academic literature on the subject. By identifying these two key periods, we apply case studies to analyze the changing dynamics of the UN’s response to Israeli settlements.</p> Muhammad Erza Aimar Rizky, Muhammad Habibie Copyright (c) 2025 Juris Gentium Law Review https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/JGRL/article/view/20003 Fri, 13 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0700 O Simultaneity, Thou Shan’t Flee to Unholy Divinity! “Simultaneous Obligations” Interpretation of UNSC Resolution 242 (1967) Denied in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/JGRL/article/view/20027 <p>The peace process between Israel and Palestine has constantly been held hostage throughout its history to a wide variety of issues, one of the thorniest being the question of the proper interpretation of the UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967). In particular, the longstanding disputation as regards whether its commands for Israel to withdraw from the territories it has occupied since the end of the Six Days War is absolute, or whether that command is contingent on the simultaneous fulfilment of its rights according to that same instrument, has been one huge stumbling block impeding the peace process from running its course as optimally as possible. The two main schools of this central instrument’s interpretation have found expression in, and thereby extended their battle to, the two advisory opinions which the International Court of Justice has rendered in the context of this chronic conflict –especially, in two individual opinions appended to each of them. A qualitative analysis of the two, in conjunction with the respective majority opinions to which they were attached, reveals that the “simultaneous obligations” school and the positions it buttresses, which essentially seeks to defend the right of Israel not to withdraw from all the territories it had occupied since the Six Days War before obtaining what they deem to be sufficient territorial concessions by Palestine, has been denied by the Court, who thereby aligned international law with the canon of interpretation allowing for a more equal playing field between the occupier and the occupied to materialise.</p> Muhammad Raihan Sjahputra Copyright (c) 2025 Juris Gentium Law Review https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/JGRL/article/view/20027 Fri, 27 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0700