The French investigative website Mediapart said that despite the International Court of Justice’s decision calling on Israel to do everything in its power to prevent any act of genocide, nothing can stop the massacre in Gaza. This raises questions about the authority of international courts and governmental institutions.

How can this situation be explained, which could spark anger and incomprehension and reinforce accusations of double standards directed at Western countries, between supporting Ukraine and indifference to Palestine? Are there other ways to put an end to massacres and endangering an entire people in the name of the state's right to defend itself? What can states, NGOs and ordinary citizens do? Is the United Nations doomed to incompetence? What is the place of international law in this context? Mediapart asks.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the judicial body of the United Nations, and it suffers from the same weaknesses as the United Nations, says the French website, referring to the question posed by public law professor Mathilde Philippe Guy in her book: Can we judge Putin? […] The International Court of Justice has no coercive means of making its decisions enforceable. For this it must rely on the United Nations Security Council. However, this “world policeman” consists of fifteen members, including five permanent members (China, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Russia), who have veto power that allows them to oppose any decision. Israel has already completely ignored a 2004 International Court of Justice ruling that declared the separation wall built in the West Bank illegal.

As legal specialist Matti Alexiano points out in the European Journal of International Law blog, the compliance rate with ICJ decisions is around 50%, but has declined in recent years as the court has ruled on more controversial and higher-stakes cases. Complying with an ICJ ruling can enhance a state's reputation on the international stage, which is particularly important for those who value their status as law-abiding actors. But compliance is also expensive. It often requires countries to modify behavior that they deem to be politically or economically beneficial, according to Matti Alexiano.

However, the recent decision of the International Court of Justice is a “historic” step, “Mediapart” quotes Johan Sofi, a lawyer and former international prosecutor and former legal head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) in Gaza, who explained that even if it is temporary Because the merits of the case will not be decided until several years later, it obscures “some of the arguments that challenge the reality of the seriousness of the situation.”

Moreover, a conviction on the merits, even without a direct effect, would have a potentially significant impact. Johann Sophie continued: “If Israel is condemned, for several years, for violating the 1948 Genocide Convention, it will be a very powerful symbolic shift. It will be difficult for certain countries to continue to support Israel unconditionally, for example by sending weapons. The fact that there is a serious risk of genocide means that all states parties to the Genocide Convention have a duty to prevent it.”

The website also quotes Julia Pinzautti, an assistant professor at Leiden University (Netherlands), as saying that this is especially important for countries that supported Israel and provided it with military assistance.

Mediapart pointed out that, in contrast to the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court does not depend on the United Nations, but both are located in The Hague (Netherlands) and have jurisdiction over the crime of genocide. The ICC, which entered into force in July 2002, is governed by the Rome Statute signed in 1998, which has so far been ratified by 124 countries. Another major difference from the ICJ is that the ICC is a criminal court: it judges individuals, not states, its decisions are binding on the parties, and they have tangible consequences.

On March 17, 2023, for example, it issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin and his Commissioner for Children’s Rights, Maria Lvova-Belova, on charges of deporting Ukrainian children to Russia. Even if the implementation of the International Criminal Court’s decisions depends on the good faith of the countries that Vladimir Putin will visit, last July, the Russian president was forced to abandon a trip to South Africa, for fear of being arrested.

Mediapart continued to clarify that in 2009 and 2014, the United Nations Security Council condemned Israel’s disproportionate use of force in Gaza and called for an end to it. But since the start of the Israeli operation launched in the wake of the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, the Authority has shown the extent to which it is, despite the heavy losses among Palestinian civilians, unable to put itself into action.

In apparent contradiction, in response to Vladimir Putin’s aggression against Ukraine, Western countries and their allies imposed a package of international sanctions on Russia, affecting transportation, energy, services, raw materials, and financial assets. No such decision was taken with regard to Israel, despite the flagrant violations of international law. In Gaza and the occupied territories, and the horrific human and material losses of the operation carried out by the army of the Hebrew state, “Mediapart” explains.

Last Thursday, Washington imposed sanctions on only four Israeli settlers under a presidential decree issued by Joe Biden, targeting acts of violence committed in the occupied West Bank. The US administration is considering expanding these financial sanctions and visa bans to include other people involved in similar acts.

For the rest, the more general sanctions hypothesis does not spark any high-level political or media dialogue. In Europe, only a few political voices have spoken out on this topic. In mid-December, the leader of the “Proud France” party, Jacques-Lec Mélenchon, called for the imposition of “economic sanctions” on Israel, explaining that “these sanctions will not be sanctions against the Israelis, but rather against the government that is leading them to this massacre in Gaza.” In Belgium, the head of the Socialist Party, Paul Magnet, called in mid-January for “economic sanctions,” Mediapart notes.

Source: Sama News