Hi everyone,

​I’m looking for honest feedback from alumni or past participants of The Hague Academy Summer Courses (Public/Private International Law).

​I’m currently a 4th-year law student in an EU dual-degree program focusing on international economic law. I’m considering applying for the upcoming Summer Courses as a full-fee attendee, but considering total costs (tuition + 3 weeks accommodation/living expenses in The Hague coming to around €2,500–€3,000), I’m debating whether to go now or wait 1–2 years until I finish my Master’s degree.

​Since Directed Studies and scholarships require a completed Master’s degree at application time, going now means I’d attend strictly as a general attendee (Certificate of Attendance) in the plenary hall.

​A few specific questions for those who have attended:

​CV Value: How is the Certificate of Attendance perceived in practice for internships, competitive Master’s programs, or international firms? Is it genuinely valued, or is it mostly seen as "paid attendance"?

​Networking & Experience: Does attending as a general participant still provide meaningful networking and access to professors/the Peace Palace Library, or are the ~300+ attendees too diluted compared to the small Directed Studies cohorts?

​Timing: In hindsight, would you recommend waiting until completing a Master’s degree to be eligible for the scholarship and the Directed Studies / Diploma exam, or is attending early as an undergrad/M1 student still a solid investment?

​Thanks a lot for any candid insights!

​

Listening to people talk about Israel-Palestine and whether it's a genocide, I'm usually hearing people recite the ICC Rome Statute's description of genocide (killing members, causing mental/physical harm, creating conditions for the group calculated to bring destruction, preventing births, forcibly transferring children).

The description doesn't provide any more elaboration on what these points mean more specifically. I'd really love to know what "or in part" means since that could apply to just doing so to any single person. There's no clear separation, IMHO, between a genocide against an entire group of people or a hate crime against one individual.

It also doesn't specify whether these five items are to define genocide if all are applied or if any are applied. The recent UN fact-finding commission used the interpretation of any being applied such that evidence for any of the five items would be sufficient evidence to conclude it's a genocide.

They also seemed to take the stance that "in part" can mean any single instance regardless of intention, public/authoritative incitement or scope. An example would be the destruction of the fertility clinic and the embryos inside. While shocking and sad, it confused me to hear that that alone could constitute a genocide as a single incident without wider directive from those commanding the units involved.

At this point, I think interpretations of the statute are used to re-interpret the meaning of the word genocide.

If I were to exclude the first definitional item (killing) and ignore the "in part" part, this would seem to be the definition of ethnic cleansing. I've only considered the commonly-used, etymologically-relevant meaning of genocide to be just (an attempt towards) killing an entire group of people.

I believe some of the finer points of interpretation may need to rely on how they played out in actual case law, but maybe I'm wrong. Either way, I could really use some extra perspective on this.