The Hague- Today, Friday, the International Court of Justice panel of 15 judges issued preliminary orders demanding that Israel immediately stop its military operations in the city of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip and withdraw its forces, but it did not order a complete ceasefire, as part of the case brought by South Africa, in which it accused Israel of committing… Genocide.
The International Justice Department’s decision is considered the third move this year against the interests of Israel, which for the first time finds itself facing unprecedented international isolation. It recently faced a request from Prosecutor General Karim Ahmed Khan at the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And his Minister, Benny Gantz, in addition to the recognition of the State of Palestine by 3 European countries.
Although Tel Aviv has ignored the decisions of this court on previous occasions, because the supreme legal body of the United Nations does not have any means to implement its decisions, today’s orders have great international weight that is expected to increase Tel Aviv’s political isolation, after a series of violations recorded within the besieged sector. For more than 7 months.
Legal pressure
During his reading of the details of the International Justice ruling, the President of the Court, Nawaf Salam, said that the temporary measures referred to last March did not address the situation in the Gaza Strip, stressing the need to stop the Israeli military attack “and any other action in the city of Rafah that would be imposed on Palestinians in Gaza are subject to living conditions that could lead to their complete or partial physical destruction.”
In this context, Michael Baker, professor of international human rights law at Trinity College Dublin and former legal officer at the International Court of Justice, believes that this decision is “the first of its kind,” which orders Israel to suspend its military operations in Rafah.
Speaking to Tel Aviv Tribune Net, he added, “This not only puts Tel Aviv under great pressure to change its behavior, but also Washington, which will force it to take US President Joe Biden’s previous statements seriously.”
Last March, Biden warned that his country would not continue to supply Israel with certain types of weapons if the occupation army launched a military attack on the city of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, but his position remained wavering when he stressed that Israel had not yet crossed the red line.
For his part, international law expert Gilles Duver confirmed that the decision will increase pressure on Israel and the United States. As for the expected positions of European countries in this regard, the French lawyer recalled the press release published by France and Germany, in which they explained their commitment to respecting the court’s decision, and did not rule out Announcing the same position after the decision issued today by the International Justice Department.
In an interview with Tel Aviv Tribune Net, Dover expected that the International Court of Justice would address the existence of possible genocide, as the court ordered Israel to guarantee the arrival of any fact-finding mission sent by the United Nations to investigate allegations of genocide, considering that military operations constitute a “real and imminent danger” to the Palestinian people. She stressed the need to keep the Rafah crossing open “to provide basic services and humanitarian aid without obstacles.”
Appeal rejected
The specialist in international criminal law and extradition, Toby Cadman, considered that the fact that Israel is a party to the Genocide Convention represents legal pressure on it that forces it to accept and implement the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. He particularly mentioned the court’s earlier announcement that “countries that provide Israel with assistance, whether Diplomatic cover or actual military assistance could also be considered involved.”
Cadman praised the strength of the evidence provided by South Africa regarding the situation in Rafah, and said in an interview with Tel Aviv Tribune Net that it was expected that international justice would not order Israel to complete a ceasefire and to withdraw all Israeli military forces from all parts of the Gaza Strip, wondering at the same time, “Will it abide by it?” “Israel has any court order in light of its continued disregard for the laws?”
In turn, the former legal officer at the International Court of Justice, Michael Baker, confirmed that Israel will not be able to resort to an appeal. Despite the International Court of Justice rejecting South Africa’s multiple requests to issue an order requiring Israel to suspend its military operations, highlighting the humanitarian conditions in Rafah and the majority of judges expressing Last March, it was decided that halting these operations would be appropriate, which contributed to today’s court decision.
Regarding Israel’s continued focus in its arguments on the issue of self-defense against Hamas, Baker does not believe that the court will put Israel in a position where it cannot defend itself against any future attacks, “which is a smart move,” he said, because court orders cannot Obliging Hamas. However, if the International Justice order is conditional on Hamas not continuing the attack, this order will create an incentive for the Palestinian resistance to respect the ceasefire decision.
Permanent transformation
While it has become clear that Israel and its American ally are losing global momentum, French lawyer Gilles Duver asserts that “using the veto, which has prevented the rights of the Palestinian people since 1949, is an unthinkable means before international justice.”
He justified this by the presence of solid legal foundations in the Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court that considers Palestine a state, and stipulates that any criminal act that has an impact on the Palestinian territories falls within its jurisdiction. “Therefore, we are facing a case that will cause an irreversible diplomatic shift.”
Regarding whether this decision will accelerate the issuance of a similar resolution in the Security Council, Dover believes that the member states of the United Nations will not be able to say, in the long term, that what is governed by the judicial authority of the United Nations has no effect, especially when it comes to a member of the Security Council, Otherwise, this will cause a revolution within the United Nations if international justice decisions are not respected.
Toby Cadman agrees with what the French lawyer said, noting that any failure to implement the resolution will go to the United Nations General Assembly. He said that we have previously seen that the United States has chosen not to use its veto power when presenting the issue to the Security Council, “and this indicates that Washington is becoming increasingly concerned about the extent of its support for Israel.”
In turn, Michael Baker explains that court orders are formally legally binding, and if Israel does not abide by them, this will mean a direct violation of international law and will be added to the list, pointing out that there are other types of executive court authority, including the power of persuasion, which means clarifying the court’s Its order is the justification for any measures that will be imposed.
The International Court of Justice ordered Israel to submit a report to the court within one month on the progress it has made in implementing the measures it ordered.