The decision of the International Court of Justice issued on 24/05/2024, upon the request of South Africa, comes as no surprise in its current form, especially amidst ongoing military operations in Rafah and Gaza as a whole.
The aforementioned decision demanded that Israel immediately cease its attack in Rafah, based on its obligations under the Genocide Convention it previously signed and joined. It also called for the reopening of the Rafah crossing to facilitate humanitarian aid delivery and allow UN monitors and specialized agencies to investigate allegations of genocide, potentially leading to an independent international investigation. This comes amid the dire conditions faced by people in Rafah and Gaza, where many currently reside in tents in the Mawasi area of Khan Yunis and central Gaza without necessities like water and healthcare due to the targeting of most hospitals and a shortage of fuel in operational hospitals.
The mentioned decision was approved by the majority of the International Court of Justice judges, totalling 15, with 13 judges, including the President of the Court and judges from all Western countries, agreeing.
In its referenced decision, the Court pointed out the need to amend a previous decision issued on 28/03/2024, urging Israel to take effective measures to ensure compliance with the Genocide Convention, citing Article 76(1) of its 1978 rules, which allows it to do so before issuing its final decision.
In its first decision on this matter issued on 26/01/2024, following South Africa’s submission to the Court on 29/12/2023, the International Court of Justice called on Israel to take effective measures to prevent genocide, including killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, imposing conditions of life intended to cause physical harm, and implementing measures aimed at preventing births.
The question arises: how will the International Court of Justice enforce its recent decision issued on 24/05/2024 on the ground? Another question arises regarding the Court’s possession of executive mechanisms to do so.
It is evident that the International Court of Justice, positioned at the apex of international justice, lacks executive mechanisms to compel relevant states to enforce its decisions without international political will, especially from the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly. It is essential to note that adopting the current decision by the UN Security Council will likely be vetoed by the United States, meaning a diluted formulation, perhaps including a ceasefire, might be acceptable to the US. The UN General Assembly may adopt the decision in its current form but without obligatory status. Unfortunately, all this indicates the inability to compel Israel to cease its attack on Rafah and halt its war against Gaza shortly.
Nevertheless, the recent decision by the International Court of Justice will exert significant pressure on decision-makers in Israel, particularly following a decision by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court days ago regarding the situation in Palestine, which included a request for the ICC to issue arrest warrants for leaders involved in military actions against the Palestinian people in Gaza. This also coincides with the recognition of Palestine by several European countries and the announcement by other Western states of their intention to recognize Palestine soon.
