The Importance of The ICJ’S Ruling on Israel
Israel, facing accusations for orchestrating a genocide on the citizens of Gaza, finds itself entangled in a legal battle.
The legal representatives of South Africa resorted to the United Nation’s top court to seek justice for the atrocities carried out by the Israeli military in the Gaza strip.
In the highly anticipated hearing, South Africa put forth a plea for the court to mandate an immediate cessation of Israel’s military activities straight away, pending a decision on the grave accusations of genocide.
Despite Israel's dismissal of the accusations as “wholly unfounded”, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued the initial ruling during its Friday's hearing, just two weeks after the commencement of the case. However, a verdict on the primary accusation of genocide is anticipated to be significantly delayed, potentially extending over a period of several years.
ICJ highlighted genocidal statements made by the Israeli Defense Minister and acknowledged the situation was “at serious risk of deteriorating further.”
Although the court stopped short of ordering a halt to Israel’s military actions, it did impose several demands on Israel, aligning broadly with most of the nine “provisional measures” requested by South Africa.
Whilst Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refrained from directly commenting on the ruling, he stated: “Israel’s dedication to International law remains unwavering. Equally unwavering is our sacred commitment to defend our country.”
The question lingers whether Israeli supporters will move past their earlier scepticism towards the case, disregarding it as “meritless”, and now urge Israel to comply with this ruling.
A departure from the established pattern of consistent support for ICJ rulings by Western governments, particularly in the case of Israel, carries the risk of significant consequences for the international "rules-based order”.
The rulings of ICJ are binding but there is no enforcement mechanism, and as a consequence, Israel could choose to ignore the judges altogether. It would only be possible if Western governments withdraw support in the case of failure in compliance with the ICJ’s ruling.
The annual military aid of $3.8 billion, provided by the US government to Israel, could be used to pressurise Israel to enforce the provisional measures demanded by the ICJ. However, the decision will yet again rest in the hands of Biden; whether he wants to put his fear of domestic political consequences and his personal identification with Israel before the lives of so many people, time remains to tell.
The International Criminal Court could also intervene to ensure compliance by prosecuting individuals for crimes including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. If Israel were to ignore the ICJ ruling, that would be an added spur for the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, to act in this way.
Ultimately, the fate of this legal battle rests on the decisions of leaders and the international community's commitment to accountability, justice, and the prevention of atrocities. The journey ahead will test the resilience of global institutions and the willingness of nations to stand firm in the face of violations.
However, the decision is a win for the rule of law and demonstrates that even governments with powerful friends can be held accountable. This is a ray of hope for the profoundly suffering Palestinian civilians of Gaza and a significant step towards a more lawful and just world.
By Riya Parkash
