Image source: Pexels.com

On January 26, the International Court of Justice released its highly anticipated temporary measures order in South Africa’s case against Israel, charging genocide in Gaza. In it, the Court ordered Israel to “take all measures within its power” to avoid and punish genocide in Gaza, including public incitement, to allow basic services and humanitarian aid into Gaza, and to preserve any pertinent evidence. The measures were practically unanimous: just two (and sometimes just one) of the seventeen judges voted against them.

The majority of the world’s attention will obviously now shift to whether Israel complies. Statements by various senior officials, especially Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have placed severe doubt on this prospect.

The Court’s decisions cannot be enforced, and recent history indicates that the United States will veto any enforcement efforts at the United Nations Security Council. Anything short than full compliance by Israel will result in further statements about the Court’s ineffectiveness—and even international law itself. However, that would be short-sighted. The criticism overlooks three other roles of the order, in addition to an immediate shift in Israel’s behavior: it mobilizes international efforts to end the conflict, affects the parties’ expectations and strategy in the case, and, most broadly, confirms vital international community values.

First and foremost, it is worth noting that the case has already had an impact on Israeli policy. On the day of the provisional measures hearings, Israel’s Attorney General released a statement warning that demands to intentionally hurt civilians “may constitute criminal offenses.” A few days before the order, Israel declassified papers claiming that Israeli officials attempted to protect civilian lives during the Gaza assault. The Israeli government is clearly taking this case and its negative ramifications very seriously.

To avoid repetition, keep in mind that the choice is tentative. As Judge Bhandari noted in his declaration,The order makes no claim that Israel has committed genocide or breached international law in general. The Court has decided three things: (1) that it has prima facie jurisdiction, (2) that Palestinians have a “plausible” right to be safeguarded against genocide (and South Africa has a right to assure this), and (3) that immediate action is required to prevent irreparable harm to those rights. The most significant implication is that South Africa’s argument that Israel perpetrated or failed to prevent genocide is credible. That alone is significant (as one academic has highlighted). But plausible is not synonymous with probable.

Enforcement through international pressure.

Regardless, the order is significant. Begin with international pressure. As Cameron Miles has noted, the ICJ is part of a larger network of international and domestic institutions that can exert pressure on parties to settle their disputes—an integrated dispute settlement system. This term often refers to a group of national and international courts that can issue binding orders to the parties. Political organs also play a role. A recent research emphasized the “dialogic function” of ICJ temporary measures in encouraging action by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly.

The directive is likely to bolster the rising chorus of voices, including those of Israel’s allies, calling on the country to change direction in Gaza.

Critics will use the order—and any sign of Israel’s defiance—as proof that Israel is behaving unlawfully. There will most likely be further votes at the United Nations asking for a ceasefire, this time with the added weight of the Court’s order. That weight will be especially heavy if tangible evidence shows that Israel is violating any of the orders. In the Security Council, pressure will build on the United States, which has already chastised Russia for obstructing Security Council measures despite court judgments.

Even if the international arena remains barred, the injunction is likely to have a practical impact domestically. Human rights groups in the Netherlands, for example, have sued to prevent the government from supplying airplane components to Israel, fearing that they will enable violations of war rules. In this case, one researcher has suggested that the plaintiffs could utilize the provisional measures order in their ongoing appeal to demonstrate that the Dutch government is now aware of potential offenses.

In the United States, the order could have a variety of policy implications. According to the Biden administration’s conventional arms transfer strategy, the U.S.will not supply weapons if they increase the likelihood of the recipient committing genocide, crimes against humanity, or certain violations of war laws. The State Department has also set guidelines for monitoring the civilian harm caused by US weapons abroad. Calls for stronger presidential monitoring of Israel’s weapons usage will undoubtedly rise, particularly given the administration’s policies’ rising internal opposition. In the Senate, members may exploit the directive to reignite efforts for a resolution linking military funding to Israel’s respect. There is enough precedent for this type of pressure. Following the Court’s ruling to stop Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, a slew of international and domestic measures were implemented to compel Russia to comply.

For example, two U.N. General Assembly Resolutions noting the Court’s ruling were carried with substantial margins. Of course, the pressure has failed to deter Russia’s actions, and the conflict continues. However, unlike Russia, which first refused to testify at the Hague, Israel is aware of its worldwide standing. Furthermore, it relies on its Western partners for help, making any pressure more effective.

Shaping the rest of the case.

Second, the order provides informational benefits for South Africa, Israel, and any possible intervenors. In general, provisional measures orders serve as a “data point” for states considering how to handle a disagreement.

Through them, the Court conveys to the parties information about their underlying legal relationship, including who is likely to succeed on the merits. Of course, the strength of the signal can vary. In this situation, when both the order and multiple different judgments emphasized the low burden of demonstrating plausibility, the signal is on the weak side.

Nonetheless, the order and appended opinions provide useful information. The vast majority of votes for the measures—including, in certain cases, Israeli judge Barak—will reassure South Africa that it has a viable case, at least enough to survive preliminary objections.

It will consider Judge Xue’s statement that “this is the very type of case” in which the Court should allow erga omnes partes standing. In terms of the dispute’s merits, it will be revealed that Judge Nolte, while generally suspicious of South Africa’s assertions, is concerned about statements made by Israeli leaders that could be construed as incitement to genocide. Israel, however, will find solace in the Court’s numerous affirmations that it is only deciding if South Africa’s arguments are reasonable, as well as Judge Sebutinde’s dissent at this early point.

Expressing international legal standards

Third, the decision carries expressive significance.

The order emphasizes the terrible facts of the struggle. It emphasizes the “massive civilian casualties” and “catastrophic humanitarian situation” caused by Israel’s military response, quoting U.N. officials who say Gaza has become “uninhabitable” and a “place of death and despair.” It also mentions Hamas’ “horrific attacks” on October 7, and expresses “grave concern” about the situation of the Israeli hostages, appealing for their “immediate and unconditional release.” These acknowledgements, delivered by the World Court’s almost unanimous judges from six continents, carry symbolic weight.

Furthermore, the order affirms two fundamental principles of international law:

the commitment to prevent and punish genocide, and the responsibility to comply by international humanitarian law during conflict. Significantly, the order specifically upholds the right of all states that have signed the Genocide Convention to bring matters before the Court based on their “common interest” in preventing genocide. This philosophy, which has the potential to revolutionize human rights enforcement, has gained so much traction in recent years that Israel has not challenged it at this point.

The order also emphasizes the importance of the common language of law. Regardless of the final conclusion, the South Africa v. Israel case has already forced Israel to justify its actions in internationally recognized terms and sparked a global debate about human rights during conflict.Rather than displaying helplessness, the order underscores the Court’s continuous (and possibly rising) role in resolving disagreement.

#cort #gaza #internationalcourt #law

Ghazala Siddique