What Could Happen In ICJ's Ruling On Israel's War On Gaza? (image@CIJ_ICJ)
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will announce its decision on South Africa’s provisional measures against Israel, accusing it of committing genocide in Gaza, in an interim verdict today, January 26, 2024. Here is what we know about the possible outcomes of the apex United Nations court’s ruling might mean to Palestine, Israel and their respective allies.
On December 29, 2023, South Africa approached ICJ accusing Israel committing of genocide in Gaza. South Africa accused that Israel has violated the 1984 Genocide Convention during its nearly four-month aggression on Gaza. The Hague court conducted a hearing on January 11 and 12 during which South Africa presented its case firs and Israel defended itself. Israel denied the claim by calling the allegations as “grossly distorted” and deemed it as “blood libel”. Israel claimed of acting on self defence and said that it was targeting Hamas not Palestinian citizens.
It is to note that the ICJ will not deal with the core question of whether Israel has or is committing genocide in today’s ruling. For now, the ICJ will only announce whether it can order emergency measures in Gaza, and what could that measures be. Experts said that the ruling on the overall case of whether Israel has committed genocide in Gaza could take years, as long as three to four years to complete.
As per Israel’s argument, the South Africa’s allegation against it in ICJ allegation that the global court does not have jurisdiction over the case. Israel argued that South Africa had not communicated with Israel sufficiently about the case before filing the application to the top UN court, which is required by the court’s own rules. The ICJ’s rules require petitioning nation to show that a dispute exist with the country it is accusing, and they have tried to address it before approaching the court. If the International Court of Justice today announces that it dies not have jurisdiction in the case, the specific requests made by South Africa could become immaterial.
What Could Happen:
Neve Gordon, an international law professor at Queen Mary University of London told Al Jazeera that, if the court announce provisional measures, it could some of the overall requests put forth by South Africa, or the court could order entirely different provisional measures determined by the court itself.
Some experts believe that the court could fall short on calling for a ceasefire. Instead, it could order access to adequate humanitarian relief, which would be a win for Israel, said Gordon. If such ruling happened, Israel could easily avoid international ramification by saying that it would allow more aid in, then not actually do much to facilitate it, like it had been doing long since the war started.
Aid agencies have already told that the arrival of humanitarian aid in Gaza without a ceasefire is unrealistic. The allowed aid trucks were not able to reach several parts of Gaza, like the north due to the destruction of paths created by the Israeli aggression in the enclave. Earlier, the Gaza photojournalist Motaz Azaiza showed hundreds of trucks carrying the desperately needed humanitarian aids waiting outside the Rafah border for the permission to enter the besieged Gaza Strip.
Gordon said, while it is not clear what the International Court of Justice will order, it ought to order a ceasefire. He said, “If you look at what is happening on-ground in the Gaza Strip, then I think the court should order a ceasefire”. He added that “‘How politicised is the decision?’ is a question that needs to be asked. He cited the 17 panel judges from different countries, which is highly likely to have an impact on the order as the interest of their countries may be seen in their legal judgements.
The ICJ can also choose not to order interim measures, which may not mean the end of the legal case. The overall case of the genocide will still be considered. Since the ICJ is the supreme legal authority, if the court failed to order provisional measures, South Africa and other countries that backed it in its complaint against Israel will have to try avenues for stopping the war other than the international legal fora, as explained by Neve Gordon. The measures could also include taking the issue to the UN Security Council, or placing legal pressure on countries Israel with ammunition. And if the violence is still continuing, another country, or South Africa itself can approach the ICJ with a separate case.
Can the ICJ ruling be any difference for Gaza:
The International Court of Justice’s rulings cannot be appealed, as they are legally binding. However, the court has no power over enforcing the ruling. The enforcement of the ruling is left to the international community. Gordon said, Israel cannot appeal to the ICJ’s ruling, and it will have to decide on whether to abide by the court’s decision or not. If Israel does not abide by the ruling, a member of the United Nations Security Council can take up the issue before the Council, which will then vote to require Israel abide by the provisional measures.
It is pertinent to note that the resolution drafted by the UNSC member state might have a different weight than compared to the decision made by the highest legal body in the world. If Washington vetoes the Security Council resolution based on the ICJ decision, then that would expose the “duplicity of the US like no other veto before”.
In a scenario where US does not veto the UNSC move and the resolution was passed, then the UN body will have the power to take punitive measures against Israel. Such examples of UNSC actions included economic or trade sanctions, arm embargoes and travel bans.
To sum it up, the ICJ rulings on provisional measures in the war destructed Gaza could possibly be actionable, but it is in the hands of international community to enforce it.
With inputs from agencies.
