With the start of the first session of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, tomorrow, Thursday, to consider the lawsuit filed by South Africa against Israel on charges of genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, attention is turning to the outcome of the sessions on Thursday and Friday and what the court can achieve in stopping the war on Gaza and holding Israel accountable.

Many observers and followers wonder to what extent it is possible for the International Court of Justice to achieve justice for the Palestinians? Are the court’s fifteen judges independent in their decisions, or do they follow their countries’ foreign policy positions in their positions? What course will the court take after this week's hearings? How does the legal team’s representation of both South Africa and Israel affect the case?

In this context, lawyer and legal researcher Alaa Mahajna says, in his interview with Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, about the independence of judges in their decisions: “In my belief, there is no national or international judiciary that is completely politically independent. Judges are influenced by the positions of the countries from which they come, and there is It is influenced subconsciously when the topic is related to a political issue and is on the media agenda extensively, and there is polarization around it within society, especially in countries allied with Israel, even if public opinion in these countries is against the war.”

Attempts to influence judges

Mahajna added, “This polarization between popular public opinion and official institutions results in debates, and they penetrate and work secretly in the judge’s mind when he works on a case like the one we are following now, and this is a structural issue in every judicial system. This is accompanied by the political and social charge of the judge’s personal formation and views.

Mahajna pointed out that Israel will try to win over these countries that have permanent judges on the court, as well as “trying to influence them by various means, and it may result in a state of conscious or unconscious influence,” adding that “Israel has begun work and sent telegrams to Israeli embassies to work on this issue with the aim of "Political pressure."

In his talk about why Israel chose liberal Israeli judge Aharon Barak, as part of the Israeli strategy to confront the court, Mahajneh pointed out that “Barak is a well-known judge on an international level, and a visiting lecturer at several prestigious universities around the world, and he is credited with all of the ‘judicial revolution’ in Israel. Which is taught as a unique experiment on the effectiveness of the judiciary in constitutional and comparative law,” adding, “What the Israeli government was trying to do last year in what is known as the judicial transfer in Israel is a coup against the constitutional revolution that Barak carried out, and now this right-wing government comes and chooses This judge is to represent it before the world, and by the way, he is a son of the Israeli establishment to the core.”

Alaa Mahajneh: Israel will try to win over countries that have permanent judges on the court and will try to influence them through various means.

Mahahana expects that the Israeli strategy will be based on the fact that “Israel is waging a war against a (terrorist) enemy that is classified by many countries as a terrorist (Hamas), and they will claim that in a war against a dangerous enemy like Hamas, innocent people and civilians may fall for the purpose of self-defense.”

But at the same time, the lawyer stressed that the Israelis “are in trouble because of the extent of the destruction in Gaza and the number of civilians killed by the Israeli bombing (...) They are also in trouble because of the many statements that indicate an intention to commit genocide and its encouragement from the political and military levels and in the media.” .

Israeli attempts to remedy the damage

In his speech, Mahajneh touched on the Israeli attempts, in recent days, to remedy the damage that resulted from these statements, pointing to what the Israeli judicial advisor recently said that statements calling for the extermination of a people are considered a criminal violation in Israel. Mahajneh considered that the Chancellor's statements come as an external message in the context of the International Court of Justice, "and Israel's awareness of the possibility of being put on trial. These statements are not innocent, and their goal is also to calm the Israeli public internally to reduce this phenomenon."

Possible surprises in Friday's session

In an interview with law professor at City University of London, Mazen Al-Masry, he expected that “all the statements that will be presented tomorrow will be prepared in advance, and there will be no discussions, but rather hearings,” adding that “the court will hear, on Thursday, the prosecution team representing the South Africa, and on Friday, the team of lawyers for Israel will give their response, which is not known yet and they have not published anything official about it, unlike South Africa, which submitted 84 pages that were published on the website of the International Criminal Court.

Mazen Al-Masry: The film that Israel intends to show during the session has no legal weight because Israel’s claim that Hamas committed crimes on October 7 does not justify the manner of fighting with which Israel responded.

Al-Masry added, “The most important points presented to the court will be summarized, and they may focus on certain topics and elaborate on others (...) There was talk in the Israeli media that Israel might show a film about what happened on October 7, and I believe that it will It has no legal weight, because if crimes actually occurred, this does not justify the manner of fighting with which Israel responded, but it is clear that the film was shown for the purpose of psychological and legal impact.”

Al-Masry considered that there would be no surprises on Thursday because South Africa’s allegations are known and documented, but there may be surprises on Friday with the Israel hearing.

Good odds of stopping the fighting

Regarding the independence of judges in the International Court of Justice, Al-Masry said, in his interview with Al-Arabi Al-Jadeed, that “according to the court’s system, judges are appointed on the basis of independence, and there is a kind of independence, and we cannot say that the judges implement the orders of the countries they are from. They do not. They represent countries, and judges often have previously worked in their countries or worked in the diplomatic corps or as advisors, so every country knows who it nominates and knows their orientations and their ability to have their policy consistent with the country’s foreign policy with regard to international law, and in harmony with the country’s principles in that regard.” .

Regarding the possibilities of the International Court of Justice accepting South Africa’s claims that Israel committed genocide crimes, and issuing a decision to stop the fighting, the lawyer said, “The allegations made by South Africa are strong and documented, and we have seen how the court dealt with previous cases related to genocide in recent years, in Russia and Ukraine.” And Myanmar, so there is a good possibility that the court will accept the request for a temporary cessation of fighting, because all the things required for that are in place and the chances of acceptance reach at least 60 percent.”

He added: "But the question remains, what will be the content of the decision? Will something similar be issued, such as Russia and Ukraine, to stop the fighting? Or will it relate to the entry of humanitarian aid? Or oblige Israel to fight according to the standards of international law? This is what we will know in the coming days, and it may take from a week to two months." ".

Al-Masry spoke about the South African legal team, saying that it is “a brilliant team and the people in it are very experienced and recognized for their high abilities in this field. If we look at the cases they have worked on previously and the opinions in their publications, it is clear that there is a strong commitment to human rights and they sympathize with the Palestinian cause.”

Al-Masry concluded by saying that the document submitted by South Africa to the court is based on great effort and careful research and is based on United Nations treaties and documents.

Source: Alaraby Aljadeed