Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

When the International Court of Justice talks about the law, the international law is law. The Genocide Convention is law. There seems to be some idea that there are real laws, which we look to such as for prospectuses and regulations, and then there is aspirational law that is somehow aspirational. An advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice is a definitive interpretation of what international law already applies. It is not an aspirational document. It is not requesting that future laws would be made. It is telling states what laws apply to them. Mr. Makhlouf said we cannot just deal in statements and abstract pieces. Does he recognise that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice is a definitive interpretation of applicable international law?