#icj ruling legally binding

[news4dzhozhar]

‘ICJ’s Rulings on Israel are Binding’ – UN Secretary-General

[chaithetics]

EDIT: I've now made a post that you can read here with more information about the ICJ rulings, their powers and what we can do with this ruling here. I had to this morning and will continue to delete, report, and block all comments/asks that are anti-Arab, zionist, Islamophobic, racist, and/or antisemitic.

We already knew this but the ICJ has now ruled that Israel's continued occupation of Palestine is illegal and needs to end ASAP.

They found that Israel's occupation does not give it the right of sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza and that it is not a temporary occupation but is an illegal, permanent and discriminatory annexation. The ICJ also found violence against Palestinians, Israeli exploitation of Palestinian natural resources, transfer of civilian population (settlers and companies/organisations), extension of Israeli laws to replace local Palestinian laws, forced displacement of Palestinians, confiscation of Palestinian land, annexation. That Israel's 'security concerns' are not valid justifications for any of these measures.

The ICJ has ordered Israel to end its presence in the West Bank and Gaza immediately and to cease all new settlement activity, return all lands and assets to Palestinians that they've ceased since 1967 and that includes archives and items of cultural significance, evacuate all of their settlers from the settlements, pay compensation, and repeal all laws that maintain this occupation and discrimination. The ICJ is not legally-binding but does carry significant political weight and this ruling is important for continuing to advocate for Palestine and to put pressure on our government's to do the right thing and for them to put pressure on Israel. Keep contacting your representatives!

[zvaigzdelasas]

The International Court of Justice has issued a ground-breaking decision in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel, ordering Israel to comply with six provisional measures to safeguard the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from genocidal violence.

The court’s order is binding on Israel and formalizes the international legal obligations of other countries that are parties to the UN Genocide Convention.

Properly understood, the order should dramatically alter both the foreign and domestic policy decisions of Israel’s allies, including Canada and the United States.

Israel and its allies cannot dismiss or minimize the importance of this decision. In granting interim relief, the court concluded that South Africa’s allegations of genocide are, at a minimum, legally and factually plausible.

Crucially, the court expressly concluded, by an overwhelming majority, that Palestinians in Gaza face a “real and imminent risk” of genocide. This puts other countries on notice that they have an international legal duty to take steps to prevent genocide in Gaza in accordance with the court’s order.

As the court stated in a 2007 ruling when Bosnia accused Serbia of genocide, countries that are parties to the Genocide Convention have an obligation to prevent and a corresponding duty to act “the instant that the state learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed.”

Both Canada and the U.S. have construed the court’s decision narrowly, suggesting it merely reiterates Israel’s right of self-defence and obligation to comply with international humanitarian law.

This is a legally indefensible reading of the court’s ruling.[...]

Statements of political support by the U.S. and Canada that Israel is abiding by the laws of war — contrary to the facts — cannot shield Israel or its allies from their legal obligations under the Genocide Convention. Those obligations — including to prevent genocide — are created via treaty and are interpreted by courts, the highest of which is the International Court of Justice.

The obligation to prevent genocide, combined with the court’s finding of a serious risk of genocide, means that all parties to the Genocide Convention must refrain from taking steps that would actively frustrate the effective implementation of the court’s order.[...]

But just hours after the court’s ruling, the U.S. announced it was suspending funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.[...]

The U.S. is the biggest financial contributor to UNRWA. Several other key donor countries, including Canada, quickly followed suit.

UNRWA is the largest aid provider in Gaza and a trusted lifeline to civilians in the territory. Even if the allegations are true, defunding the entire organization openly defies the court’s order and amounts to collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza

Disturbingly, moves to defund UNRWA appear to help implement Israeli government plans to undermine the organization’s capacity to deliver aid to Palestinians in Gaza. Earlier this month, policy experts told the Knesset that UNRWA “must be dismantled and thrown in the dustbin of history” and that “no country that is a friend of Israel should provide them any money.”

The ICJ found that “the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further,” plausibly inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza.

Accordingly, any country’s action knowingly contributing to further deterioration would violate the obligation to prevent genocide and could amount to complicity in genocide.[...]

In 2022, Canada sent more than $21 million worth of military exports to Israel. The Export and Import Permits Act forbids arms permits to be issued if there’s a “substantial risk” that the goods could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law.

Because the ICJ found a serious risk of genocide in Gaza, continuing to export arms to Israel would be illegal. It would also be flagrantly inconsistent with Canada’s obligation to prevent genocide, and could expose Canada and Canadian officials to liability for participation in genocide.

We must reject the politics of deliberate indifference to atrocity currently on display in the Canadian government’s reactions to the ICJ ruling.

28 Jan 24

[sayruq]

Judges at the top United Nations court ordered Israel to halt its offensive in the southern Gaza city of Rafah and withdraw from the enclave, in a case brought by South Africa accusing Israel of genocide, citing “immense risk” to the Palestinian population. Friday’s decision marked the third time this year the 15-judge panel has issued preliminary orders seeking to rein in the death toll and alleviate humanitarian suffering in Gaza. While orders are legally binding, the court has no police to enforce them. Reading out a ruling by the International Court of Justice or World Court, the body’s president, Nawaf Salam, said provisional measures ordered by the court in March did not fully address the situation in the besieged Palestinian enclave now, and conditions had been met for a new emergency order. Israel must “immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” Salam said, and called the humanitarian situation in Rafah “disastrous”. South Africa’s lawyers had asked the ICJ in The Hague last week to impose emergency measures, saying Israel’s attacks on Rafah must be stopped to ensure the survival of the Palestinian people.

[effervescentdragon]

I want to talk about the ICJ ruling of July 19th on Palestine and Israel.

I've been mulling this over in my head for days now and I finally have the time to sit down, do research and write it all down. I don't think a lot of people understand what it actually means. Most of the reactions I've seen focus on the wrong thing, which is how it affects the USA, instead of the more, maybe the most important one, which is how it affects Europe and the EU. I will explain what I mean, hopefully comprehensively, ahead.

First of all, the online and offline worlds both are incredibly, annoyingly saturated with USAmerican perspective. We all fall prey to the trap of looking at things through the USAmerican perspective, which is both understandable and wrong. No matter how much it tries to present itself so, USA is not the only country in the world, and although its existence is sadly important through the virtue of "it does not allow itself to be ignored no matter how much we all wish we could", in this case, the US is irrelevant. It is irrellevant because the ICJ decision was not made to put pressure on the US. That is not possible, as the US is notorious for not obeying, respecting, or indeed even acknowledging any of the International Law, or IL treaties. In this post of mine I have compiled only some of the international law agreemebts and treaties that the US has either not signed, or signed and not ratified, which makes it so they're not bound to abide by them. I only want to emphasise one - the American Declaration of Human Rights. It predates even the UDHR, and the USA has never ratified it, which means it does not have to obey it. If the USAmericans have not yet realised that their human rights are non-existent, just look at your data privacy laws, or lack thereof (this post starts in nicely on it). What I am trying to say with all of this is that nobody actually expected the US to obey the ICJ decision. For all of USAmerican boasting about being democratic and the paragon of justice, if you go through actual transcripts and notes from UN General Assembly sessions and International Bodies' rulings and debates, you will more often than not see the US as an (consciencious) objector to many motions that aim(ed) to make life better for humans on Earth, be these climate change policies or human rights policies or war policies. USA serves only its own imperial, megalomaniacal interests and its blatant disrespect and disregard of International Law only brings this fact into light. This ruling was never about the USA and with this, I will stop talking about it because the USA is irrelevant for what I actually want to say. (Also I'm sick of it. Of having to write a full paragraph about the US even when it's not about the US.)

Let us get to the actual point.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is a body of the UN that is responsible for adjudicating international disputes and giving advisory opinion on international legal issues. I will not recount the history of establishing the UN and these bodies of International Law and Practice, but suffice to say it replaced the Permanent Court of Justice after WW2, much like the UN replaced the League of Nations. It is also the only body of the UN not located in New York, instead it is located in The Hague in the Netherlands. The most important thing is that all states members of the UN are party to the ICJ statute, established by the UN Charter. In the matter of rulings, ICJ, much like the rest of the international law instruments, has jurisdiction on the basis of consent, be it explicit or tacit, which means that the States which bring their cases to the ICJ therfore agree that the ICJ has jurisdiction, and accept to be subjected to the ICJ's ruling. In the matter of giving advisory opinion (that can be requested either by the General Assembly or the Security Council, or if it's abother organ, by GA's authorisation), these opinions are consultative and non-binding in character. However, they carry a great weight and authority, and are also not without legal basis. The ICJ's views on the issues of international law are reflected in the legal reasoning, as the court follows the same procedures that the state laws that IL relies on demand.

On December 30th 2023, the UN General Assembly submitted a request for an advisory opinion of the ICJ on the practices and policies of Israel in the occupied Palestinian teritory. This is the full request, and here is the core of the request:

GA was asking ICJ to advise on alleged breaches of multiple counts of human rights laws that Israel was commiting on the people and the land of occupied Palestine, and to determine if Israel's occupation of Palestine is true, and therefore in breach of international law. This is important for multiple reasons, but especially because in a court case that we all know of, South Africa vs. Israel, South Africa accused Israel of commiting genocide, therefore going against the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Israel's defense in this case (not the only one, but the currently relevant one) was the claim that "Israel has the right to defend itself".

Advisory opinion on the ICJ on Israel's practices in occupied Palestine of July 19th 2024 (here is it in full) comes down to a couple of rulings:

- Israel is an apartheid state (illegal);

- Israel's occupation of Gaza is illegal;

- Israel's annexation of the West Bank is illegal;

- Israel continuously and consistently violates Plaestinian right to self-determination (illegal);

- Israel's settlements in Palestine are illegal;

- Israel's exploitation and theft of Palestine's resources is illegal;

- Israel's forced displacement of Palestinians is illegal.

This means many things, amongst others the fact that ICJ ordered cessation of the Israel colonial project and further settlements, evacuation of illegal settlers, return of land and property and assets to the Palestinians, and reparations to be paid by Israel. But what is extremely important is that the fact that Israel, being and conducting an illegal occupation in Palestine, does not have the right to defend itself. What id incredibly important is that Palestine has the right to self-determination, which means claims of "Palestine does not exist" are false. Palestine exists, and has a right to self-determination.

Now, you might wonder why I went into this without yet stating my point. Here is my point.

International law is tricky. It works on the basis of "good faith" and relying on the agreement of its subjects to obey it. All the UN countries are subject to ICJ rulings. All the UN countries are subject to a million and one treaties and rulings and declarations of the UN they have signed and ratified and pledged thenselves to obey. The ICJ advisory opinion on the legal implications of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine was made with these facts in mind.

The paragraph I highlighted above means that every single EU/European country that exports arms to Israel is now potentially in breach of the rulling of the highest body of international law that they are bound to obey. The General Assembly is advised and tasked by ICJ to take measures to ensure that Israel's occupation stops. The way of doung this is through sanctions, and that also means that the States currently aiding and abetting Israel's occupation are bound by international law agreements to stop. These countries know this, know that there is no way out now, that they will have to obey sooner or later. This is who the ruling is important for.

Another body of international law is the ICC. International Criminal Court, set in Hague, the first and only criminal court with the jurisdiction to trial individuals for international crimes such as war crimes, agression crimes, human rights crimes and genocide crimes. That ICC is preparing to issue criminal warrants against Netenyahu, Israeli, and Hamas leaders. It is preparing to issues criminal arrest warants to war criminals, and a part of it is influenced by the ICJ ruling. Of course, the countries such as Germany, a cesspit of Nazi capitalists who cannot stand a genocide being commited withiut its involvement is already trying to obstruct this process and by themselves more time to accumulate capital by funding an illegal occupation. Austrian right-wing party tried to do the same, but was blocked by the Greens. Other countries might try to do the same, but the fact is - they will fail. The ICJ advisory opinion made sure of that.

What do you mean, you might be asking yourself. I mean that the whole of international community now has a confirmation from the highest body of international law that holds jurisdiction over them that Israel's occupation is illegal. I mean that it is only a matter of time before the ongoing court case of South Africa about the genocide becomes codified and the ruling reflects the reality of the crimes against humanity we have been witnessing for the past 10 months. I mean that I grew up watching the Hague Tribunal proceedings of ICC in the case of Yugoslavian War Crimes, and that I know that it is only a matter of time before my mornings are once again filled with the proceedings against Netenyahu and other war criminals. I mean that I know and understand how a fight for humanity and dignity must be fought on all sides - by Yemeni military actions and by BDS boycottd and by holding your politicians accountable and by protesting and donating, but it is also being fought in the courts of international law. It is fought in a way that signals to the "west" that the very structures put by these States in place after WW2 to prevent atrocities does not mean that these States are exempt from them. This ICJ ruling is monumental for Europe especially, because no matter how many issues I personally and we all have with the UN bodies, they still mean something. Their opinions and rulings still carry a weight, a weight we have all felt, and their proclamations make it so people and structures and governing bodies who have pledged themselves to be under their jurisdiction cannot pretend they don't know what's happening. Cannot pretend they don't know what they are funding and supporting and making themselves rich on. Europe cannot claim ignorance anymore, and ICJ made sure of that.

What can I say as my final words? I wrote this post because I don't think that a lot of people understand, or understood, what this means. I wrote it because I've been walking in a daze since the ruling, and the hope in my heart scares me as much as it invigorates me. I wrote it because I am certain, now more than ever, that Palestine will be free. I hope you are, too.

[thatdebaterguy]

I recently heard that the ICJ, which is frankly a complete joke of a system anyway, has come to what is an incredibly ambiguous ruling on whether genocide is being committed. Well ambiguous except for the fact they didn't say there was genocide taking place. The official statement can be interpreted in many ways, so I'll show it here.

A lot of people have taken this message as "Palestine is enduring a genocide and Israel needs to stop." but they're doing what happens in many legal situations where they're using non-binding and purposefully exaggerated language on what could've been a simple statement. It's basically saying Palestinians have rights to be protected from genocide, which is a possibility, and should be prevented. This.. is stuff we already knew. Obviously Palestinians have human rights, obviously genocide should be prevented, and obviously it's not actually happening. There is a very real risk, as there is in almost every conflict, of genocide happening, especially since Israel has the capacity to wipe Gaza off the face of the earth. This ruling is basically another emphasis that Israel should do more to prevent this conflict from going from violent and thorough, to mass bloodshed and genocide, which for the time being they're managing that at debatable levels, and of course there's room for improvement. but it's war, not an exam, you can't memorise a few quotes and hope everything is fine. Anyway, there is no genocide, so stop using exaggerative and emotive language to try get pity points for your cause. Stick to the facts.

[memecucker]

January 31, 2024, Oakland, CA – After a federal court heard arguments and testimony in the case Defense for Children International – Palestine v. Biden on Friday, January 26, charging the Biden administration with failing in its duty to prevent, and otherwise aiding and abetting, the unfolding genocide in Gaza, a federal judge found that Israel is plausibly engaging in genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza and that the United States is providing “unflagging support” for the massive attacks on Palestinian civilians in contravention of international law. The court’s decision follows a historic ruling by the International Court of Justice last Friday, which also found the Israeli government was plausibly engaged in a genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, and which issued a series of emergency measures Israel must take to end its genocidal campaign.

The U.S. court based its assessment on the “uncontroverted” live testimony of seven Palestinian witnesses, including one from Gaza and one from Ramallah, who testified firsthand to Israel’s killing of their nieces, cousins, aunts, uncles, elders, and members of their community, to the mass displacement of their families reminiscent of the 1948 Nakba, and to the devastating conditions of life in their homeland as the siege leads to mass starvation. The court also relied on the expert opinion of genocide and Holocaust scholars who confirmed that Israel’s military assault and totalizing humanitarian destruction bears the hallmarks of a genocide based on legal and historical precedent. Nevertheless, the court reluctantly dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds. While the court recognized that the prohibitions on genocide are fundamental and binding international law, this was a “rare” instance where “the preferred outcome is inaccessible to the Court” and it found it lacked power to resolve the case because it implicated executive decision-making in the area of foreign policy.

Delivering a historic rebuke of Israel and the United States for its flouting of the Genocide Convention, the court wrote:

Both the uncontroverted testimony of the Plaintiffs and the expert opinion proffered at the hearing on these motions as well as statements made by various officers of the Israeli government indicate that the ongoing military siege in Gaza is intended to eradicate a whole people and therefore plausibly falls within the international prohibition against genocide.

The court recognized the substantial role of the United States in furthering the genocide and noted that “as the ICJ has found, it is plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide” and, therefore, the “Court implores Defendants to examine the results of their unflagging support of the military siege against the Palestinians in Gaza.”

The court stated, “It is every individual’s obligation to confront the current siege in Gaza.”

[argyrocratie]

(...)

"Set the scene for us: what is the ICJ, and why is the hearing taking place there?

The 1945 UN Charter — signed by all UN members, including Israel — affirms that the ICJ is the UN’s supreme legal organ. The Constitution establishes two powers for the Court: issuing advisory opinions, and ruling in cases between states. The Court’s verdicts are binding on the states that have signed the UN Constitution. A state can agree in an ad hoc manner that a particular dispute will be litigated by the ICJ, or invoke signed treaties containing a clause that establishes ICJ jurisdiction over disputes relating to those treaties. 

Israel has always had reservations about the jurisdiction clause, and has refrained from agreeing to ICJ jurisdiction in all the hundreds of treaties it has signed, except one: the Genocide Convention. Article 9 of the Convention stipulated that if disagreements arise between the members over the Convention’s authority or interpretation, the ICJ is the place to hear them. 

ICJ decrees are enforced by the UN Security Council. Chapters 6 and 7 of the UN Charter allow for a range of sanctions against countries that violate the Court’s ruling, such as economic sanctions, arms embargoes, and military intervention. The latter is rare but it has happened, for example in the first Gulf War.

Why did Israel sign up to ICJ jurisdiction in the Genocide Convention?

I’m not a legal historian; I can only guess. Israel was one of the initiators of the treaty, and historically one can understand why Israel would have pushed for such a treaty in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Secondly, I think that back then, the popular Israeli notion that we do not let gentiles judge us had not yet developed. We are talking about an era in which the international system had recently decided to establish a Jewish state. Maybe there was a little more trust in that system back then.

What constitutes a violation of the Convention?

(...)

It is defined as an act of extermination, or creating conditions that will annihilate a particular group with the intention of eradicating that group or even a distinct part of it.

The Convention, which was integrated into Israeli law in 1950, states that a soldier or civilian who kills a person, even one, while aware that he is part of a system aimed at annihilation, is guilty of the crime of genocide. In Israeli law, the punishment for this is the death penalty. This also applies to those who conspire to commit genocide, those who incite genocide, and those who attempt to participate in genocide.

What is South Africa basing its lawsuit on?

South Africa bases its accusation on two elements. One is Israel’s conduct. It cites a great deal of statistics about the indiscriminate, disproportionate attacks on civilian infrastructure, as well as about starvation, the huge number of casualties, and the humanitarian catastrophe in the Strip — horrifying statistics that the Israeli public is barely exposed to, because the mainstream media here does not bring them to us.

The second and more difficult element to prove is intent. South Africa is trying to prove the intent through nine dense pages of references to quotes by senior Israeli officials, from the president to the prime minister, government ministers, Knesset members, generals, and military personnel. I counted more than 60 quotes there — quotes about eradicating Gaza, flattening it, dropping an atomic bomb on it, and all the things we’ve gotten used to hearing in recent months.

South Africa’s case does not rely only on the fact that some Israel leaders have made genocidal statements. It further charges that Israel has done nothing in response to these statements: it hasn’t condemned the statements, it hasn’t dismissed from office the people who expressed them, it hasn’t opened disciplinary proceedings against them, and it certainly hasn’t opened criminal investigations. This, as far as South Africa is concerned, is a very strong argument.

Even if we haven’t heard the IDF Chief of Staff or the General of the Southern Command say these things, and we don’t have an operational order that says, “Go and destroy Gaza,” the very fact that these statements have been made by senior Israeli officials without sanction or condemnation sufficiently expresses Israel’s intention.

South Africa also pulled a little legal stunt to get here, correct?

Yes. The jurisdiction of the Court is determined when a dispute arises between the parties over the interpretation or application of the Convention. South Africa sent several letters to the Israeli government saying, “You are committing genocide.” Israel responded, “No we aren’t.” So South Africa said, “Okay, we have a dispute over the interpretation of the Convention.” That’s how it got the authority.

What can we learn from similar ICJ cases in the past, such as those regarding genocides in Bosnia and Myanmar?

First of all, we know from these cases that the burden of proof on South Africa is significantly lower for obtaining an interim order than for ultimately proving that Israel is committing genocide. We also know that this case will continue for years: the Bosnia case took 14 years; Gambia v. Myanmar is still ongoing. But the procedure for an interim order is fast.

Gambia filed its case against Myanmar on behalf of the Organization of Islamic States. It asked for an interim order stating that Myanmar must cease its military operations [against the Rohingya people]. The Court ruled that at this stage of the hearings, it did not need to determine whether the crime of genocide had been committed. What it needs to decide is whether, without an interim order, there is a real danger that the prohibitions set out in the Genocide Convention will be violated.

An interesting interim order was issued in that case, which I think has a good chance of being issued to Israel as well — not in the context of military activity, but of incitement. The Court’s order also required Myanmar to take enforcement actions and submit reports to the ICJ and Gambia on what it was doing to prevent genocide. As for the cessation of Myanmar’s military activity, this matter went to the Security Council, where both Russia and China threatened vetoes, but Western countries imposed sanctions and a military embargo anyway.

So even if South Africa fails to make the Court issue an interim order to stop Israel’s military activity, it could be that in the context of incitement — which enjoys full immunity in Israel — the Court will say that Israel needs to do something.

(...)

I know lawyers don’t like to wager on the results of court hearings, but if the ICJ does produce an interim order, what will that mean for Israel?

If the Court issues an order, the question is of course whether Israel will obey it or not. Knowing Israel, I expect that it will not obey the order, unless it can present the ending of hostilities as the result of its own independent decision, unrelated to the Court order. 

There are good reasons for Israel to do this, because disobeying an ICJ order brings things to the UN Security Council. It’s true that the United States has a veto there, and therefore a resolution to impose sanctions on Israel would most likely be blocked. But vetoing an ICJ order regarding concerns that genocide is taking place would come at an enormous political price for the U.S. government, both domestically and internationally. 

The Biden administration wants to portray itself as a government that sees human rights as one of its pillars. So it is likely that the United States would only veto such a resolution while imposing a significant cost on Israel in order to justify doing so, such as allowing the residents of northern Gaza to return to their homes, or entering into negotiations over two states — I don’t know.

But even if the United States doesn’t use its veto in that scenario, an interim order from the ICJ is likely to cause Israel serious problems. 

There is such a thing as an international legal “deep state.” Jurists and judges listen to what important courts say. And when the ICJ, also known as the World Court, makes its rulings, national courts in most of the Western world take note. Therefore, if the ICJ rules that there is a danger of genocide being committed, I can imagine a British citizen turning to a British court and demanding that the UK cease trading arms with Israel. Another implication is that such an ICJ ruling would likely force the ICC’s chief prosecutor [Karim Khan] to open an investigation of his own.

(...)

Within what time period is the Court’s decision expected?

There are no set rules, but in the Gambia v. Myanmar case, there was a decision within a month. It should be remembered that this [Gaza] case will continue after the hearing on the interim order. Israel will have to present evidence that will exonerate it from the claim that it is committing genocide, but in doing so could get into difficulties with the ICC. For example, it may explain that it bombed a certain place because it was pursuing a military objective, but it may thereby make admissions that create a basis for the claim that it used disproportionate force."

...

[palestinegenocide]

Amnesty International says Israel “failed to comply with ICJ ruling”

More than 50 states and organizations have presented their testimony at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which concluded its hearings on Monday, discussing the illegality of Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) said on Monday that “a just, lasting and comprehensive peace based on a two-state solution in Palestine is the only way to ensure security and stability of all people in the region and protect them from the cycle of violence.”

ICJ is expected to issue a non-binding legal opinion by the judges on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands captured in June 1967, sometime this summer.

Israel has shunned sending a representative to the Hague, instead filing a five-page written statement, saying that the ICJ’s case “aimed at harming Israel’s rights to defend itself from existential threats.”

On Monday, it submitted a report to the ICJ detailing steps it is taking to comply with a court order in January, to prevent genocidal actions in Gaza. Since then, Israel killed nearly 3,000 Palestinians.

Amnesty International said that Israel “failed to take even the bare minimum steps to comply” with the ICJ ruling.

Heba Morayef, the Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International, said that “not only has Israel created one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world, but it is also displaying a callous indifference to the fate of Gaza’s population by creating conditions which the ICJ has said places them at imminent risk of genocide.”

[capybaracorn]

(The Hague, February 26, 2024) – The Israeli government has failed to comply with at least one measure in the legally binding order from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in South Africa’s genocide case, Human Rights Watch said today. Citing warnings about “catastrophic conditions” in Gaza, the court ordered Israel on January 26, 2024, to “take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian aid,” and to report back on its compliance to the specific measures “within one month.”

One month later, however, Israel continues to obstruct the provision of basic services and the entry and distribution within Gaza of fuel and lifesaving aid, acts of collective punishment that amount to war crimes and include the use of starvation of civilians as a weapon of war. Fewer trucks have entered Gaza and fewer aid missions have been permitted to reach northern Gaza in the several weeks since the ruling than in the weeks preceding it, according to United Nations Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

“The Israeli government is starving Gaza’s 2.3 million Palestinians, putting them in even more peril than before the World Court’s binding order,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch. “The Israeli government has simply ignored the court’s ruling, and in some ways even intensified its repression, including further blocking lifesaving aid.”

Other countries should use all forms of leverage, including sanctions and embargoes, to press the Israeli government to comply with the court’s binding orders in the genocide case, Human Rights Watch said.

Human Rights Watch found in December 2023 that Israeli authorities are using starvation as a weapon of war. Pursuant a policy set out by Israeli officials and carried out by Israeli forces, the Israeli authorities are deliberately blocking the delivery of water, food, and fuel, willfully impeding humanitarian assistance, apparently razing agricultural areas, and depriving the civilian population of objects indispensable to its survival.

Israeli authorities have kept its supply of electricity for Gaza shut off since the October 7 Hamas-led attacks. After initially cutting the entire supply of water that Israel provides to Gaza via three pipelines, Israel resumed piping on two of its three lines. However, due to the cuts and widespread destruction to water infrastructure amid unrelenting Israeli air and ground operations, only one of those lines remained operational at only 47 percent capacity as of February 20. Officials at the Gaza Coastal Municipalities Water Utility told Human Rights Watch on February 20 that Israeli authorities have obstructed efforts to repair the water infrastructure.

According to data published by OCHA and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the daily average number of trucks entering Gaza with food, aid, and medicine dropped by more than a third in the weeks following the ICJ ruling: 93 trucks between January 27 and February 21, 2024, compared to 147 trucks between January 1 and 26, and only 57 between February 9 and 21. A survey of impediments to the entry of aid faced by 24 humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza between January 26 and February 15 pointed to a lack of transparency around how aid trucks can enter Gaza, delays and denials at Israeli crossings and inspection points, and concerns about safety of trucks.

By comparison, an average of 500 trucks of food and goods entered Gaza each day before the escalation in hostilities in October, during which time 1.2 million people in Gaza were estimated to be facing acute food insecurity, and 80 percent of Gaza’s population were reliant on humanitarian aid amid Israel's more than 16-year-long unlawful closure. High-ranking Israeli officials have articulated a policy to deprive civilians of food, water, and fuel, as Human Rights Watch has documented. The Israeli government spokesperson said more recently that there are “no limits” to aid entering Gaza, outside of security. Some Israeli officials blame the UN for distribution delays and accuse Hamas of diverting aid or Gaza police for failing to secure convoys.

The Israeli government cannot shift blame to evade responsibility, Human Rights Watch said. As the occupying power, Israel is obliged to provide for the welfare of the occupied population and ensure that the humanitarian needs of Gaza’s population are met. The Israeli human rights group Gisha challenged the Israeli government’s claims that it is not obstructing entry or distribution of aid and also found that it is not complying with the ICJ order.

Israeli authorities have also obstructed the aid that enters Gaza from reaching areas in the north. The survey of humanitarian organizations found that “almost no aid is distributed beyond Rafah,” Gaza’s southernmost governorate. On February 20, the World Food Programme paused deliveries of lifesaving food to the north, citing lack of safety and security. Israeli forces struck a food convoy on February 5, the UN said and CNN documented.

Between February 1 and 15, Israeli authorities only facilitated 2 of 21 planned missions to deliver fuel to the north of the Wadi Gaza area in central Gaza and none of the 16 planned fuel delivery or assessment missions to water and wastewater pumping stations in the north. Fewer than 20 percent of planned missions to deliver fuel and undertake assessments north of Wadi Gaza have been facilitated between January 1 and February 15, as compared with 86 percent of missions planned between October and December, according to OCHA.

“Israel’s ground forces are able to reach all parts of Gaza, so Israeli authorities clearly have the capacity to ensure that aid reaches all of Gaza,” Shakir said.

Since the ICJ order, Israeli authorities have also apparently destroyed the offices of at least two humanitarian organizations in Gaza and taken steps to undermine the work of UNRWA, the largest provider of humanitarian aid in Gaza, which more than half of other humanitarian organizations rely on to facilitate their operations. The head of UNWRA, Philippe Lazarini, said in a February 22 letter to the UN General Assembly president that the agency has reached a “breaking point” due to multiple government suspensions of funding and Israel’s campaign to shut the agency down.

Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, said on February 13 that he had blocked a US-funded flour shipment to Gaza, because it was going to UNRWA. Israel has alleged that at least 12 of the agency’s 30,000 employees participated in the October 7 attacks, which the UN is investigating.

In late December, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), a multi-partner initiative that regularly publishes information on the scale and severity of food insecurity and malnutrition globally, concluded that over 90 percent of Gaza’s population is at crisis level of acute food insecurity or worse. The IPC said that virtually all Palestinians in Gaza are skipping meals every day while many adults go hungry so children can eat, and that the population faced famine if current conditions persisted. “This is the highest share of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity that the IPC initiative has ever classified for any given area or country,” the group said.

On February 19, The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) found that 90 percent of children under age 2 and 95 percent of pregnant and breastfeeding women face “severe food poverty.” On February 22, Save the Children said families in Gaza “are forced to forage for scraps of food left by rats and eating leaves out of desperation to survive,” noting that “all 1.1 million children in Gaza [are] facing starvation.”

In response to a request by South Africa for additional provisional measures following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s order for Israeli authorities to explore a possible plan to evacuate Rafah ahead of a ground incursion, the ICJ said that the “perilous situation demands immediate and effective implementation of the provisional measures” throughout Gaza – but not new measures – and highlighted Israel’s duty to ensure “the safety and security of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”

Beyond enabling the provision of basic services and aid, the measures in the ICJ’s binding order require Israel to prevent genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and prevent and punish incitement to commit genocide. The ICJ issued these measures “to protect the rights claimed by South Africa that the Court has found to be plausible,” including “the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide.” Although South Africa asked the court in its oral arguments during January hearings on the provisional measures to make any report it ordered public, the court did not indicate that it has done so.

Between January 26 and February 23, more than 3,400 Palestinians were killed in Gaza, according to figures from Gaza’s Health Ministry compiled by OCHA.

South Africa’s case against Israel for genocide is distinct from the proceedings on the legal consequences of Israel’s 57-year-occupation, which began at the ICJ on February 19.

“Israel’s blatant disregard for the World Court’s order poses a direct challenge to the rules-based international order,” Shakir said. “Failure to ensure Israel’s compliance puts the lives of millions of Palestinians at risk and threatens to undermine the institutions charged with ensuring respect for international law and the system that ensures civilian protection worldwide.”

[tieflingkisser]

International Court of Justice Finds That BDS Is Not Just Legal, But Obligatory

The ICJ’s ruling found that states have a duty to bring Israeli occupation, colonization and apartheid to an end.

Israel and its lobby have, for years now, been engaged in a frenzy of activity to further insulate Israel from accountability by using their influence in the West to effectively outlaw organized opposition to Israel. Foremost among these efforts has been the Israeli campaign to penalize calls to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel for its gross violations of human rights. As a result, countless laws and policies are now on the books across the U.S. and the broader West, trampling on core constitutional principles and internationally guaranteed human rights in defense of Israeli impunity. But an advisory opinion issued last month by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should help to turn that around. In its historic ruling, the ICJ found that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza is entirely unlawful, that Israel practices apartheid and racial segregation, and that all states are under a duty to help bring this to an end, including by cutting off all economic, trade and investment relations with Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In other words, as a matter of international law, all countries are obliged to participate in an economic boycott of Israel’s activities in the occupied Palestinian territory and to divest from any existing economic relations there.

[...]

Recognizing this, Israel, as well as its Western allies accused of complicity in Israel’s international crimes (chief among them, the U.S., UK, and Germany) have been scrambling to oppose, delay, and obstruct action by these courts, both by intervening in court proceedings and, in some cases, by threatening court officials. And indeed, the ICC warrant process has already been inordinately delayed when compared to previous cases. Nevertheless, for its part, the ICJ advisory opinion was both timely and uncompromising in its application of international law to Israel. Israel and its allies also defensively claim that advisory opinions of the ICJ are “non-binding” and, indeed, the court cannot compel a state to comply with its findings. But what this tactic ignores is that the laws to which the court refers in its authoritative opinion are, in fact, binding on all states. For example, the court observed that the right of the Palestinians to self-determination, their rights under international human rights and humanitarian law, and the prohibition of Israel’s acquisition of territory by force impose so-called “erga omnes” obligations, that is, binding obligations that apply to all countries. Among these obligations are the duty not to recognize or assist the occupation in any way, and the duty to take action to realize the equal rights and self-determination of the Palestinian people. It follows that any policies or acts by a Western country that in any way recognize Israel’s occupation, assist Israel in that occupation (economically, militarily, diplomatically, etc.), or prohibit persons under its jurisdiction from respecting international law by boycotting or divesting from Israel’s illegal occupation, would be unlawful.

[triggerblaze345]

TikTok of an Al Jazeera reporter explaining the ICJ Gaza Genocide case.

“The UN’s top court has given a ruling on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. The court says Israel must take measures to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza.

But it didn’t order an immediate ceasefire. That’s what South Africa wanted. They brought this case. Israel wanted the case thrown out entirely and the judges rejected that.

Let’s break it all down.

This is all happening at the ICJ at the Hague. It’s the main court in the UN system. It gets involved whenever there is a dispute between UN member states. Like when countries are accused of breaking international treaties. And the treaty we’re talking about here is the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Also don’t confuse the ICJ with the ICC. That’s a different court that deals with individuals. So South Africa alleges that Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide, according to the definition in that convention.

Now this most recent ruling, and this is super important, is not a final decision on that case. This was about responding to South Africa’s request for emergency measures to stop the suffering in Gaza, while the court considers the main genocide case. Something that’ll take years.

So the the judges have ordered Israel to do six things. Tap and hold this video if you want to read them all.”

An image appears with a list of the six orders from ICJ

Prevent acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Ensure its military does not commit acts of genocide.

Prevent and punish any incitement to commit genocide.

Ensure the provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance in Gaza.

Preserve any evidence relating to allegations of genocide.

Report back to the court within in one month on what it’s doing to comply with those orders

“The main takeaway is that Israel needs to prevent the killing of Palestinians in Gaza and allow more aid in. This ruling is legally binding. But the court itself has no way of actually forcing Israel to comply.

So we’re left with a couple of big questions. First, will the ruling do anything to change Israel’s approach and make a difference to the people in Gaza?

Well, Israel’s prime minister has called the change of genocide outrageous and says the war will continue until Hamas is defeated and all the hostages are released.

And that leads to a second question. How might other countries pressure Israel to comply? Whether that’s through the UN Security Council or in conversations with the Israeli government. People are especially watching what the US, Israel’s main ally, might do.

The US has already vetoed three UN resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. So it comes to another vote, would the US also veto a resolution that tries to enforce the ICJ’s orders? Like on the issue of aid for example?”

Video cuts to a clip of White House correspondent Patty Cullhane who is talking

“Says Israel needs to let more aid into Gaza. The exact same thing that the Biden administration has been asking for. So if this comes to a Security Council decision, cause as we know the ICJ doesn’t have any enforcement powers, if someone brings it up to the UN Security Council, is the US going to be able to veto exactly what they’ve been calling for Israel to do?”

End of video

[adropofhumanity]

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that Israel's settlement policies and exploitation of natural resources in the occupied Palestinian territories violate international law. The court has determined that Israel's legislations and measures enacted in the occupied Palestinian territories constitute segregation and apartheid, in breach of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The comments came during the ICJ's advisory opinion on Friday regarding the legal consequences of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories since 1967.

While the opinion will not be binding, it could increase diplomatic pressure on Israel.

[sayruq]

Israeli officials anticipate that the International Court of Justice in The Hague will issue orders on Friday to halt the ongoing military conflict with Palestinian militants in Gaza, according to a senior diplomatic source. An Israeli diplomatic source told Israel Hayom that legal experts assessed there was a high probability the court would rule to issue injunctions following a petition filed by South Africa against Israel’s military actions. The two potential scenarios, the source said, were that the court could order a cessation of Israeli operations in the city of Rafah in southern Gaza, or further, that it could seek to halt the broader war in Gaza entirely through court injunctions. Orders to halt the war represent the most severe scenario from Israel’s perspective, as they could significantly impede Israel’s ability to continue its military mission in Gaza. This despite Israel repeatedly emphasizing it is not bound by the court’s rulings. Another significant concern is that injunctions from The Hague could precipitate a similar resolution by the U.N. Security Council, where Israel would again require the United States to veto it.

[chaithetics]

ICJ is a hopeless waste of time and resources. Nothing they decide has ever made any difference. Israel is going to keep doing what it is doing until Netanyahu decides it’s enough (or until the people of Israel kick him and his cronies out.) Or until Iran nukes them. (After which I’m sure the ICJ will issue another opinion telling Iran they shouldn’t have done it and shouldn’t do it again. On pain of a strongly worded letter.)

Hey Anon, how are you? Thanks for sending this in, hope you're having a good weekend.

I'm not sure what you're hoping to get out of this? Especially because I'm not going to disagree with you, the United Nations System acts as a tool of neocolonialism for the interests of global powers, especially the 'Western' ones.

The ICJ (along with other UN bodies) is deeply, deeply flawed and its powers around what is binding and enforceable is often superficial and sham-like. In my post I didn't praise the ICJ, I just tried to factually summarise the findings in a way that would hopefully be accurate and I pointed out that those findings/requests aren't binding, unfortunately Israel does not have to follow any of this. I only mentioned that it's not legally-binding in the last paragraph so I guess I could've made it clearer? I'm sorry if that was unclear to you or anyone else seeing this!

My last paragraph tries to be a bit hopeful just because apparently that's needed to prevent burnout and stop apathy in crises like this. I want people to feel motivated and mobilised to do what they can so we can see a free Palestine in the lifetime of every living Palestinian.

I think there's issues with the humanitarian framework but due to the standing of UN and its image in the West, UNRWA is playing an important role at the moment with Palestinian aid. It's one of the only sources occasionally getting in, and it's the only humanitarian entities linked to Palestine that is getting funding. With an ICJ ruling like this, western governments are more likely to resume, continue or increase UNRWA funding and potentially withdraw funding going towards humanitarian aid in Israeli settlements and 'defence' (we all know it's OFFENSE) funding.

I'm not British, so it could just be how it appears on my timeline and feeds with the time difference but it appears that Britian resumed their previously halted UNRWA funding a few hours after the ICJ ruling came out. It's not an amazing victory but it's something.

I think we both know Netanyahu isn't going to stop anytime soon and what is goal is. And even if a new Prime Minister came into the picture, Israel is a state of terrorism, it is a colonial power and will continue to harm, illegally occupy and murder Palestinians as long as it exists as a state. This has been happening since it's inception.

The ruling isn't a massive victory. But it still carries the political significance of being more political ammunition that can be mobilised for activism for those of us outside of Palestine for putting more pressure on our government's (especially those of us with western governments) to recognise the state of Palestine, withdraw recognition of Israel, increase Palestinian aid funding, place economic and diplomatic sanctions against Israel, demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire, create and approve Palestinian visas etc. For those who can still be optimistic this might be something to help sway some nations and important figureheads. The ruling sends a message out, it's now somewhat on us to try and make this non-binding ruling mean something and place pressure on our governments.

Thanks for sending this in, hope it wasn't too much of a rambled read. have a great weekend.

Free Palestine!

[reuna]

ICJ ruling shows that ‘no state is above the law’: Maliki

Riyadh Maliki, Palestinian Minister of Foreign Affairs, has issued a statement responding to the International Court of Justice’s ruling on the emergency measures requested by South Africa in its genocide case against Israel over its war on the Gaza Strip.

Here is his full statement:

Palestine welcomes the significant order by the International Court of Justice in South Africa’s case against Israel under the Genocide Convention. In light of the incontrovertible evidence presented to the Court about the unfolding genocide, the ICJ ordered these provisional measures.

The ICJ ruling is an important reminder that no state is above the law or beyond the reach of justice. It breaks Israel’s entrenched culture of criminality and impunity, which has characterized its decades-long occupation, dispossession, persecution, and apartheid in Palestine.

Israel failed to convince the Court that it was not violating the Genocide Convention. The ICJ judges saw through Israel’s politicization, deflection, and outright lies. They assessed the facts and the law and ordered provisional measures that recognized the gravity of the situation on the ground and the veracity of South Africa’s application. Israel is accused of destroying an entire people and will now stand accused of Genocide, the crime of all crimes.

Palestine calls on all states to ensure respect for the order of the International Court of Justice, including by Israel. Governments must ensure they are not complicit in this genocide, starting with stopping arms trade with Israel. Governments must also endeavor to stop the industrial slaughter and destruction in Gaza. This is now a binding legal obligation.

The Palestinian people and leadership will be forever grateful to the people and goverment of South Africa for taking this bold step of active solidarity. We are also grateful to the millions of people who have not stopped taking to the streets around the world to protest the genocide and champion Palestinian rights to life and freedom.

Palestine will continue to work with allies to ensure an end to the genocide, accountability for the atrocious crimes, and the protection of our collective rights as peoples of the world to equal human rights, justice, and freedom. This is a fight for humanity the world cannot afford to lose.