Regardless of the Western media effort to downplay the South Africa case earlier than the Worldwide Courtroom of Justice charging Israel with violating the Genocide Conference, the motion remains to be getting a good bit of play. To recap, South Africa is looking for “provisional measures” to bar Israel from committing genocide whereas the Courtroom considers a full case. We listing these 9 provisional measures on the finish of the publish. We’ve embedded the three key paperwork, the preliminary South Africa written submitting, known as in ICJ communicate an “software”, the South Africa oral argument, and the Israel oral argument, in a separate publish.
These “provisional measures”‘ are analogous to a brief restraining order within the US context, to stop imminent hurt since a last determination would by (on this occasion) years away. The ICJ is anticipated to concern its ruling within the subsequent one to 3 weeks.
Regardless of the appreciable commentary on this authorized motion, there appears a comparative dearth of debate on how the court docket may rule and why. Thoughts you, it isn’t as if varied commentators haven’t addressed appreciable parts of the case, however I’ve but to see an effort at a by means of remedy (admittedly a publish from Lawfare comes shut however doesn’t take into account a few of the procedural questions, or the pressures on the judges). As a non-lawyer and a non-expert on this specific form of dispute, I’m counting on the enter of others with area data, so additional commentary welcome.
The very brief model of what follows is:
The ICJ can reject the South Africa case, can settle for it however not order provisional measures, can decide and select among the many provisional measures South Africa known as for, can modify some or all the advised provisions measures and even implement its personal.
Nearly all commentators have punted on the difficulty we centered on in our earlier publish,1 that Israel had claimed there was a critical procedural downside with the South Africa motion. Although the Israel presentation of this concern was weak and screechy (in line with the caliber of its oral argument), a cautious studying of the South Africa oral argument and its submitting says Israel might certainly have some extent. And in case your humble blogger might discover these deficiencies, the percentages appear excessive an Israel-friendly jurist might too. There’s a query, very a lot over my pay grade, as as to if South Africa might refile. The analogy to related grounds for dismissal in Anglosphere circumstances suggests it ought to be capable to, however that might significantly dent the credibility of South Africa (when it comes to care in going about such a critical cost) and in addition delay any reduction in Gaza.2
The supporters of the South Africa case contend it will injury the credibility of the court docket if it have been to fail to implement any provisional measures. That’s the reason Norman Finkelstein has advised that a technique for the court docket to compromise could be to order some however not all provisional measures. My perception is that the court docket won’t be keen to impose the 2 provisional measures that quantity to imposing a ceasefire on Israel. The court docket would appear hard-pressed to reject Israel’s competition that Hamas just isn’t a celebration to the Genocide Conference, so to require solely Israel to place down its arms would quantity to inviting a full-bore Hamas onslaught.
As for the “status of the court docket,” sadly in our neoliberal world what’s prone to matter extra is the status of the person judges of their dwelling international locations. And we’re seeing loud arguments (admittedly right here from a media organ that’s within the can for Israel) that the “status of the court docket” arguments go towards discovering for South Africa. From the Economist in Charging Israel with genocide makes a mockery of the ICJ (hat tip furzy):
With its case, South Africa is making a mockery of the court docket. Genocide requires that Israel is killing individuals in Gaza merely for being Palestinian. Actually it’s concentrating on Hamas fighters in response to a lethal assault on its territory. Some far-right Israeli politicians have used hateful language, however they don’t seem to be articulating authorities coverage. South Africa has known as on the ICJ to impose a unilateral ceasefire on Israel, which would depart it unable to defend itself towards Hamas, a terrorist group whose founding constitution requires the killing of Jews. By attempting to carry Israel solely answerable for the loss of life of Palestinians, it’s vindicating Hamas’s tactic of preventing from faculties and hospitals within the data that the loss of life of civilians killed within the crossfire will inflame international public opinion.
The icj [sic] is unlikely to supply a last ruling for years. South Africa’s case is so flimsy that it will be stunning if its last arguments persuade the judges that Israel had dedicated genocide.
It’s astonishing to see the depth of perception amongst Israel-defenders, even with orthodox retailers like CNN conceding in a headline final week Lots of of 1000’s are ravenous in Gaza as famine arrives at ‘unbelievable pace,’ UN assist chief warns. However that view is prone to animate a few of the ICJ jurists.
The opposite wee “status of the court docket” downside the ICJ has no enforcement powers. It could take UN motion (which the US is certain to veto) or measures by states, individually or appearing in live performance.3 And Netanyahu has already mentioned he’d defy any ICJ antagonistic ICJ determination.
Prejudices of and Pressures on the Judges
The fifteen common judges for the ICJ now include representatives from 4 of the 5 everlasting members of the Safety Council, the US, China, Russia, and France, and eleven different judges, from Australia, Brazil, Germany, India, Jamaica, Japan, Lebanon, Morocco, Slovakia, Somalia, Uganda (see right here; (Craig Murray mentions in passing that the Normal Meeting succeeding in changing the UK ICJ choose with one from India was a Large Deal; it will likely be much more so if towards the percentages, South Africa will get any provisional measures accredited; new judges should get a majority vote from each the Safety Council and the UN as a complete) . They’re joined by two ad hoc judges sworn in for this case, one from Israel and and one from South Africa (every occasion to a case has the proper to nominate a choose if they don’t have already got a nationwide consultant on the panel). We are going to chorus from discussing the Israel ad hoc choose, Aharon Barak, save to level out that as an Israel Supreme Courtroom choose, he has persistently handled every little thing the IDF mentioned as gospel and has supported the defiance of previous ICJ rulings. He might wind up being a small web plus for South Africa by overplaying his hand.
Deciding a query in favor of the plaintiff requires a majority. So an abstention is tantamount to a vote for Israel.
Norman Finkelstein, in counting noses earlier than the listening to, argued that France was 50/50, and that Russia and China have been unlikely to vote for South Africa. Finkelstein argued neither nation would wish to open the Genocide Conference can of worms (any ruling that lowered the bar might be turned towards them). Russia has additionally been pointedly staying as far-off as attainable from the Gaza controversy, after they would have been anticipated to clear their throats by now and disapprove of Israel’s actions in Gaza. Keep in mind that as Finkelstein put it, “Germany by no means met a genocide it didn’t like.” Germany was fast to say it will intervene within the case in assist of Israel within the trial section. Finkelstein additionally identified that Uganda all the time sides with Israel.
The percentages of France siding with South Africa seem to have since dropped after the French Overseas Minister lambasted the South Africa case. From Center East Monitor:
French Overseas Minister Stephane Sejourne has advised that Paris might not settle for the Worldwide Courtroom of Justice (ICJ)’s ruling towards Israel for genocide, as a result of it “crosses an ethical threshold”.
“To accuse the Jewish state of genocide is to cross an ethical threshold,” Sejourne mentioned. “The notion of genocide can’t be exploited for political ends. This has all the time been our place.”
Regardless of some criticism throughout the EU, there was no walkback.
Earlier than you contend that these ICJ judges are, or no less than might be, unbiased, do not forget that they don’t seem to be appointed for all times, not like US Federal Courtroom judges. Judges whose phrases expire in 2027 or 2030 are from Slovakia, France, Somalia, China, Uganda, India, Lebanon, Japan, Choose Georg Nolte Germany and Brazil. Whereas some ICJ judges are re-elected, that isn’t a certain wager.
So all these judges, except they plan to retire, must assume they’re going again to regular life of their dwelling international locations. You don’t must go down the ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern/Larry Johnson line of considering, that the US will likely be out to alert any attainable wrong-thinking choose of kompromat that might be made public. If any of those judges are within the Collective West energy construction (and those in these international locations must be to get into the ICJ within the first place), the judges possible know nicely of how an unwelcome determination might price them: youngsters’s purposes to elite faculties rejected. A partner in knowledgeable companies enterprise (say legislation or consulting) sees his shoppers disappear.
Finkelstein underscored this concept in a later interview, the final in a 4 half sequence on the Connections Podcast on Jadaliyya, after each side had made their oral arguments. At 19:10, he defined that just about each authorities had taken sides for or towards Israel, and it will be very tough for a choose to buck his authorities. Finkelstein mentioned the case of Richard Goldstone, whose profession was ruined when his 2009 report back to the UN discovered each Israel and Palestine had dedicated struggle crimes.
Keep in mind that was 2009. Cancel tradition is far more open and harsh than it was then.
Craig Murray, one of many solely 14 who secured a seat within the ICJ gallery to look at the hearings reside, famous how uncomfortable the judges appeared and the way keen they have been when Israel introduced up attainable procedural escape hatches. From his write-up of South Africa”s oral argument:
The South African delegation was buoyant and mutually supporting, with loads of inclusive physique language and comparative animation. The Israeli delegation was the other of animated. It appeared extreme and disdainful…
You wouldn’t suppose from the physique language it was Israel that stands accused. Actually the one individuals within the court docket whose manner was significantly dodgy and responsible have been the judges. They completely regarded like they actually didn’t wish to be there. They appeared deeply uncomfortable, fidgeted and fumbled papers quite a bit, and infrequently regarded immediately on the attorneys talking.
It occurred to me that the individuals who actually didn’t wish to be within the Courtroom in any respect have been the judges, as a result of it’s the truth is the judges and the Courtroom itself on trial. The very fact of genocide is incontrovertible and had been plainly set out. However a number of of the judges are determined to discover a strategy to please the USA and Israel and keep away from countering the present Zionist narrative, the adoption of which is important to maintain your toes comfortably underneath the desk of the elite.
And from Murray’s second day write-up:
He [Malcolm Shaw] argued that South Africa couldn’t carry this case and the ICJ had no jurisdiction, as a result of there was no dispute between Israel and South Africa on which the ICJ might rule…
This very a lot the judges. As I famous on day one, this received them extra energetic than the rest when Professor John Dugard addressed the identical level for South Africa. As I reported:
The judges significantly loved Dugard’s factors, enthusiastically rustling by means of paperwork and underlining issues. Coping with 1000’s of lifeless youngsters was a bit tough for them, however give them a pleasant jurisdictional level they usually have been of their ingredient.
They have been much more excited when Shaw tackled the identical level. This gave them a approach out! The case might be technically invalid, after which they’d neither must upset the key Western powers nor make fools of themselves by pretending {that a} genocide the entire world had seen was not occurring. For some time, they regarded visibly relieved.
In different phrases, the status that’s actually at stake is that of the person judges. And never in a great way.
The Courtroom’s Key Decisions
The South Africa submitting and presentation was overwhelming in depicting the unprecedented stage of civilian deaths in Gaza, the destruction of infrastructure and hospitals, meals shortages approaching hunger, and the various statements by Israeli officers of their intent to get rid of Palestinians from Gaza. You’d suppose there was no different aspect. And by comparability, the Israel oral arguments (they didn’t submit a written submitting earlier than the listening to) appeared shrill, of the “pound the desk” faculty of lawyering, though for those who learn Israeli official statements, they use that register an terrible lot.
Nonetheless, as Murray identified above, most of the judges could be happier in the event that they didn’t must determine the case on its deserves, however might use procedural issues to dodge this bullet. Israel raised two, and in my humble opinion, did a really lazy and sloppy on the one that’s their greatest shot, the matter of whether or not South Africa had initiated a dispute earlier than it went to court docket. Notice that once more as Murray made clear, judges very very like coping with authorized arguments, so there’s good purpose to suppose, as with judges in different court docket techniques, these jurists make their very own dedication and won’t rely merely on the arguments made by every occasion.
Although this court docket is extra akin to an arbitration panel than an Anglosphere court docket, and thus might be forgiving on issues of process, it must be conscious of the necessities of the Genocide Conference along with the “dispute” requirement. Per Jus Mundi:
Usually, the requesting occasion should fulfill the next necessities (particular evaluation and case legislation on every requirement is offered through the under hyperlinked cross-references):
prima facie jurisdiction of the tribunal;
prima facie existence of a proper inclined of safety;
necessity of the measure requested;
urgency of the measure requested; and
proportionality of the measure requested.
The South African aspect made a protracted and persuasive argument that the Genocide Conference imposed obligations on signatories to cease and stop genocide, even when their nation was circuitously affected by it, and its attorneys marched level by level by means of the necessities of the Conference…besides oddly proportionality.
Certainly one of Israel’s arguments amounted to “Yeah, even for those who suppose we did one thing, try to be invoking a distinct physique of legislation.” Lawfare mentioned this notion with respect to the provisional measures that might require Israel to stop army operations, however IMHO Israel meant for it to use usually:
That is the outlet in South Africa’s case that makes an order to droop army operations uncertain. South Africa condemned the Oct. 7 assaults and hostage taking by Hamas and different Palestinian armed teams, nevertheless it didn’t totally interact with the results of Hamas’s persevering with army operations, together with rocket barrages fired at Israel. It was virtually as if South Africa had determined with its attorneys: Don’t point out the struggle. Israel in contrast talked of little else. And it spoke the authorized language of struggle, in any other case often known as worldwide humanitarian legislation: precautions in assault, warnings, army targets, confronting human shielding, and authorized assessments of proportionality.
South Africa was in a position to carry this case due to the compromissory clause within the Genocide Conference, which provides the ICJ jurisdiction to listen to disputes between events over the conference’s software. Israel, nonetheless, argued that it was IHL (the legislation of armed battle) that was the suitable legislation for regulating the conduct of hostilities—together with hostilities with an enemy that itself flagrantly violated that legislation—and that supplied the right “framework for balancing army necessity with humanitarian concerns.”
In different phrases, Lawfare didn’t take Israel’s jurisdiction handwave severely, however nonetheless concludes (as we surmised) that the court docket is extraordinarily unlikely to order Israel to halt army operations in Gaza. The “proportionality” requirement within the Genocide Conference suffices.
Now to the dispute over the dispute.
As we warned in our earlier publish, South Africa seems to be to have muffed the notification to Israel of a dispute underneath the Genocide Conference. And this isn’t primarily based on Israel’s assertions, which quantities to a lame argument, “We by no means answered so there was no dispute.”
South Africa’s personal paperwork counsel it didn’t tee this matter off correctly. A studying of the footnotes within the “dispute” sections in each the unique written submitting and the oral argument who South Africa to have repeated misrepresented what the supply paperwork mentioned or stood for. This might be a critical personal objective, since it will not have been onerous for South Africa to have taken the additional say three weeks to correctly notify Israel and giving them a deadline for replying earlier than going to the ICJ. However the dire and worsening situations in Gaza created time strain.
For those who learn the footnotes, South Africa treats varied statements by nationwide leaders, primarily on Twitter or Fb, generally to the press in their very own international locations, depicting Israel as conducting genocide as amounting to initiating a dispute. That doesn’t tee off an motion any greater than do the various many statements to the media that China has been engaged in ethnic cleaning and even genocide towards the Uighurs quantity to an official motion. As well as, not one of the international locations whose leaders used the G phrase with respect to Israel joined South Africa as co-filers of its software (though fairly a couple of states later mentioned they assist South Africa’s software).
South Africa additionally cites a number of Notes Verbale it despatched to Israel earlier than it filed its software with the ICJ on December 29 as proof of a dispute. However these have been all referrals to the ICC over allegations of assorted struggle crimes (you’ll be able to click on by means of from the hyperlink and browse the underlying doc), with solely the final together with genocide. Whereas all these different struggle crimes, reminiscent of ethnic cleaning, can serve to substantiate genocide, they don’t seem to be in and of themselves genocide.
As well as, the ICC just isn’t the ICJ. The ICC prosecutes people. From the ICC’s Understanding the Worldwide Legal Courtroom:
The Worldwide Legal Courtroom (“the ICC” or “the Courtroom”) is a everlasting worldwide court docket established to analyze, prosecute and check out people accused of committing essentially the most critical crimes of concern to the worldwide group as a complete, specifically the crime of genocide, crimes towards humanity, struggle crimes and the crime of aggression
It doesn’t have the ability to take motion towards states. The authorized authority of the 2 our bodies additionally differs. For example, the ICC can concern arrest warrants whereas as we identified, the ICJ had no enforcement powers. Equally, UN members can elect. So it’s onerous to fathom how a referral to the ICC, which might result in motion solely towards people, might be depicted as initiating motion towards a state.
South Africa claimed Israel had replied. From its oral argument:
By this time, the dispute had crystallized as a matter of legislation. This was confirmed by Israel’s official and unequivocal denial on 6 December 2023 that it was committing genocide in Gaza.142
Nonetheless, for those who use the hyperlink in Footnote 142 (https://www.gov.il/en/departments/normal/swords-of-iron-faq-6-dec-2023), it goes to a Ministry of Overseas Affairs doc, Hamas-Israel Battle 2023: Regularly Requested Questions. Merchandise 10, the final merchandise, addresses “What’s the response to the cost {that a} “genocide” is going down in Gaza?”
FAQ is a format used for speaking with the media and most of the people. I requested Aurelien about whether or not this form of response might be thought of to be a reply. Aurelien does have some data of this space; as he famous, “though I used to be very deeply concerned within the sensible features of punishing atrocities at one level in my life, and even wrote a guide about it.” He did level out that there’s a lot of authorized literature and substantial case legislation what it took for a matter to quantity to a dispute for ICJ functions. The underside line is there appears to be no consensus. Nonetheless, the matter of the “reply through FAQ”: is in a distinct class. His take:
In my expertise such responses don’t have any authorized standing in any respect. They’re identical to solutions to questions in an interview on TV.
South Africa does say it despatched an extra Notice Verbale on December 21 however that textual content was supplied solely to the judges so we can not inform the way it tried to finesse that the sooner complaints successfully had been about people, and never the State of Israel.4 South Africa filed its software every week and a day later, which IMHO is an inadequate period of time for a substantive response. Even within the US on procedural issues, 10 to fifteen days is the traditional deadline in most jurisdictions for a reply.
Once more, this can be a very muddled space. However Aurelien’s backside line, earlier than I identified that that “reply’ was a mere FAQ,, a detrimental for South Africa, was that an “activist” bench might discover for South Africa on the matter of whether or not this dispute truly had “crystallized”. Once more from Aurelien: “I suppose it relies upon how courageous the Courtroom is feeling.”
I believe the extra possible determinant of which approach the court docket goes on this concern is what would occur subsequent if the ICJ have been to find out that South Africa had not truly initiated a genocide dispute for its functions. To a layperson, this sounds analogous to dismissing a case for improper service. That form of dismissal is “with out prejudice”, as within the plaintiff can attempt once more. If the Courtroom have been to reject the submitting on this foundation, it will presumably must articulate how South Africa fell brief so it might reboot correctly. This would definitely damage South Africa’s credibility. Wouldn’t it damage the judges…greater than they could fear in the event that they discovered for South Africa? And if a refiling is feasible, it will additionally imply the case possible again of their laps after extra preliminary wrangling between Israel and South Africa. However then once more, issues might change within the meantime to scale back the strain on the court docket….reminiscent of a prolonged ceasefire.
Different Choices for the ICJ
We’ll cowl this last subject rapidly.
The ICJ might rule towards all of the requested provisional measures however permit the case to proceed on the traditional dispute timetable, as in years. Except for that plan of action permitting Israel to proceed its horrorshow in Gaza, keep in mind additionally, not like regular genocide disputes the place one occasion is the alleged perp and the opposite the sufferer, Israel has a a lot better entry to info, significantly now that Web entry has been repeatedly lower, journalists are an endangered species, and few (no?) NGOs and UN officers have entry.
As we indicated above, the take a look at of proportionality suggests the ICJ won’t approve the requested provisional measures 1 and a couple of, to droop formal and irregular army operations in Gaza. I believe they won’t approve of three (to stop genocide) since that’s an obligation underneath the Genocide Conference, to which Israel is already a signatory. Having its duties reaffirmed through a provisional measure is arguably prejudicial.
If we lived in a sane and humane world, it must be a no brainer for the Courtroom to implement the remaining provisional measures (with the removing of the phrase ‘desist” which Israel has complained is prejudicial) which name for Israel to offer humanitarian reduction, cease killing Palestinians as members of the group, and (successfully) cease making Gaza uninhabitable. The opposite measures name for preservation of proof, permit entry by fact-finders, and submit common stories to the ICJ. However requiring Israel to implement any provisional measures requires the ICJ to have decided that South Africa made a sufficiently robust case that Israel was engaged in genocide in Gaza. That’s what fairly a couple of ICJ judges actually don’t wish to do.
So sadly the percentages favor the ICJ punting, both through a procedural concern such because the one I outlined, or worse, a failure to get the wanted votes on the deserves of the case.
If that’s the end result, it would solely affirm that there are two requirements of justice on the planet, one for white colonialists5 and one other for everybody else.
___
1 This consists of John Mearsheimer.
2 The ICJ has such an enormous historical past of listening to disputes that there are virtually actually procedural precedents. However none have been in high-stakes circumstances like genocide.
3 I imagine there are some measures that take impact automagically in sure states as a consequence of pre-existing legislation. Whether or not provisional measures would set off them is once more over my pay grade.
4> From the transcript of the oral argument:
Nonetheless, as a matter of courtesy, earlier than submitting the current Utility, on 21 December 2023, South Africa despatched a Notice Verbale to the Embassy of Israel to reiterate its view that Israel’s acts of genocide in Gaza amounted to genocide — that it, as a State occasion to the Genocide Conference, was underneath an obligation to stop genocide from being committed143. Israel responded by the use of a Notice Verbale that failed to handle the problems raised by South Africa in its Notice and neither affirmed nor denied the existence of a dispute. This was emailed late on 27 December 2023, this Notice Verbale was obtained by the related South African workforce on 29 December 2023 after the current Utility was filed.
I’m attempting to keep away from reliance on something Israel has mentioned, however my impression from the Israel whinging is that if a reply have been made, the potential plaintiff wants both to handle that, as in have some backwards and forwards with the offending State earlier than going to the ICJ and talk about that historical past, or alternatively, clarify it its software why the reply confirmed that that there was an irrevocable dispute.
5 Who’s white adjustments over time. The Irish within the US within the early 1900s weren’t white. Matt Stoller and Alastair Crooke, amongst others, keep that (no less than) Ashkenazi Jews are white.____
South Africa’s requested provisional measures:
(1) The State of Israel shall instantly droop its army operations in and towards Gaza.
(2) The State of Israel shall be certain that any army or irregular armed models which can be directed, supported or influenced by it, in addition to any organisations and individuals which can be topic to its management, route or affect, take no steps in furtherance of the army operations referred to level (1) above.
(3) The Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel shall every, in accordance with their obligations underneath the Conference on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to the Palestinian individuals, take all cheap measures inside their energy to stop genocide.
(4) The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations underneath the Conference on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to the Palestinian individuals as group protected by the Conference on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, desist from the fee of any and all acts throughout the scope of Article II of the Conference, particularly: (a) killing members of the group; (b) inflicting critical bodily or psychological hurt to the members of the group; (c) intentionally inflicting on the group situations of life calculated to result in its bodily destruction in entire or partly; and (d) imposing measures meant to stop births throughout the group.
(5) The State of Israel shall, pursuant to level (4)(c) above, in relation to Palestinians, desist from, and take all measures inside its energy together with the rescinding of related orders, of restrictions and/or of prohibitions to stop: (a) the expulsion and compelled displacement from their houses; (b) the deprivation of: (i) entry to sufficient meals and water; (ii) entry to humanitarian help, together with entry to sufficient gas, shelter, garments, hygiene and sanitation; (iii) medical provides and help; and (c) the destruction of Palestinian life in Gaza.
(6) The State of Israel shall, in relation to Palestinians, be certain that its army, in addition to any irregular armed models or people which can be directed, supported or in any other case influenced by it and any organizations and individuals which can be topic to its management, route or affect, don’t commit any acts described in (4) and (5) above, or interact in direct and public incitement to commit genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, try and commit genocide, or complicity in genocide, and insofar as they do interact therein, that steps are taken in direction of their punishment pursuant to Articles I, II, III and IV of the Conference on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
(7) The State of Israel shall take efficient measures to stop the destruction and make sure the preservation of proof associated to allegations of acts throughout the scope of Article II of the Conference on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; to that finish, the State of Israel shall not act to disclaim or in any other case limit entry by fact-finding missions, worldwide mandates and different our bodies to Gaza to help in making certain the preservation and retention of mentioned proof.
(8) The State of Israel shall submit a report back to the Courtroom on all measures taken to present impact to this Order inside one week, as from the date of this Order, and thereafter at such common intervals because the Courtroom shall order, till a last determination on the case is rendered by the Courtroom.
(9) The State of Israel shall chorus from any motion and shall be certain that no motion is taken which could irritate or prolong the dispute earlier than the Courtroom or make it tougher to resolve it.