ON Friday, the voice of justice echoed in The Hague Peace Palace where The International Court of justice (ICJ) while issuing its interim order in the case South Africa v. Israel, with a majority opinion, upheld South Africa’s call for justice to prevent the ongoing Israeli acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip. The World Court while instituting its emergency measures, ordered Israel to report in a month regarding the progress of the Court order. The President of the UN top Court–an American judge Joan Donoghue –categorically ruled that the order creates international obligations for Israel in Gaza. The verdict is absolutely a triumph for the supremacy of international law.
As per the Court order, ‘’The plausible rights in question in these proceedings, namely the right of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts [under the] Convention … are of such a nature that prejudice to them is capable of causing irreparable harm.” Moreover, the ICJ while deliberating on the case gave high importance to the Israeli statements on its genocidal intent. In the case of obligations owed to the international community as a whole, that is, ergaomnes, (international obligations of the states). That said, under Article 1 of the Genocide Convention ‘’ Compliance may invoke a state’s responsibility in international law, for which non-compliance can result in an internationally wrongful act and its ensuing consequences.’’
Notably, in their exercise of legal perceptivity, the Court Judges gave high importance to Raphael Lamkin’s indoctrination–of the term genocide which became the basis for Nuremburg Trails (1945-46) and the very formation of the Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) in 1948. The ICJ instituted some paramount provisional measures ordering Israel to refrain from acts under the Genocide convention, “prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to genocide, and take immediate and effective measures to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza” while also persevering the evidence of genocide acts, thereby reporting the court within one month, regarding the compliance of the said measures.
The bottom-line of South African argument : ‘’If any military operation, no matter how carefully it is carried out, is carried out pursuant to an intention to destroy a ‘people’, in whole or in part, it violates the Genocide Convention and it must stop. That is why all military operations capable of violating the Genocide’’. Convention must cease’’. The Palestinians of Gaza face an imminent risk of group destruction, set in motion by Israel’s military campaign and impossible to prevent so long as Israel’s military campaign continues.
The Binding force of the ICJ verdict: According to Article 59 of the Statute of the ICJ, the Court’s decisions are binding on the parties involved, but they do not have binding force on third countries. The Court communicates its decisions to the relevant organs of the UN, and if Israel does not comply with the potential interim measure decision of the Court, South Africa can bring the matter to the UN Security Council to take action for the enforcement of the Court’s decision.
UNSC responsibility to protect: While the Court does not have its own military force or organ to enforce its decisions, the implementation of these decisions largely depends on the discretion of the UN Security Council (a supranational body).That said, the UNSC has a grave moral and constitutional responsibility to implement the court order. The UN secretary General Antonio Gutress rightly emphasized that increased State consent to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and compliance with its decisions would strengthen the rule of law.
The future impact of the ICJ ruling: the ICJ ruling on provisional measures in the case will have momentous implications and repercussions for the future of international law and international human rights protection. The Court’s ruling will, particularly in the Global South and by those critical of hegemonic tendencies of Western states in international law, serve as a litmus test for both the efficacy of the Court as a UN organ and the equality of states. Israel is, as any other state, subject to international law.
Arguably, holding Israel accountable conveys an important message that applies to all states; a state’s security concerns must not trump its obligations to respect international as a prerequisite for stopping cycles of violations and as foundation for a sustainable solution humanitarian law and international human rights law and the rights of a people, including its right to survival. The crucial question posed to the international community is: what is Israel doing to guarantee the Palestinian right to self-determination?
To conclude, one cannot refute the thesis that the interpretation of self-defence doctrine/policy/ arguments pleaded by the Israeli side and its allies, all remain invalid. This is self-explanatory at the part of the ICJ interim order that Israel conducted genocidal acts –of massively killing the innocent Palestinians, starving and displacing the 2.3 Palestinian population while wilfully halting the humanitarian aid to the victims—that all amount to be the real basis of genocidal crimes. Noteworthy, .Jeremy Corbyn, an MP of the British Labour Party said, ‘’ on how South Africa’s lawyers are upholding basic human dignity — and how Western states have shamed themselves by defending Israel’s crimes’’. This is because of the western hypocrisy that Israel feels no pressure and ignores the compliance of international law with impunity—unjustly supported by the western powerful states.
Given the current situation, the West faces two stark choices: either compel Israeli compliance or make a mockery of international law, ‘’thereby deepening the rift’ ’between the genocide victims and the perpetrators. The said ruling will profoundly affect upon the upcoming hearings of the Palestinian case set before the ICJ on February 19 regarding the legal consequences of the unwarranted 57 years Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. Pakistan embraced the ICJ ruling.” We consider the ICJ’s ruling timely and a significant milestone in the pursuit of justice for the Palestinian people and international accountability of Israel,” the Foreign Office said.
—The writer, an independent ‘IR’ researcher-cum-international law analyst based in Pakistan, is member of European Consortium for Political Research Standing Group on IR, Critical Peace & Conflict Studies, also a member of Washington Foreign Law Society and European Society of International Law. He deals with the strategic and nuclear issues.
Email: rizvipeaceresearcher@gmail.com
views expressed are writer’s own.
