The Hague, Netherlands:

As marathon climate change hearings wrapped up Friday at the world’s top court, a representative for vulnerable nations voiced “huge disappointment” at the attitude of top polluters and urged judges to make them legally accountable for historic emissions.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has played host to history over the past 10 days, with a record number of nations and organisations addressing the court.

More than 100 speakers have presented, ranging from diplomats of the world’s top economies to representatives of tiny island nations making a debut appearance before the UN’s top court.

In what many experts have painted as a “David Vs Goliath” scrap, stark divisions have emerged between top polluters and those suffering most from climate change.

Major powers such as the United States, China, and India have warned the judges not to go beyond the existing legal framework for combating climate change.

But smaller states argue this blueprint, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is insufficient to mitigate the devastating effects of the changing climate.

Representing a group of 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific states, Cristelle Pratt told AFP there was “huge disappointment” at developed countries but that it was “quite unsurprising.”

“We cannot just rely on the climate treaties to address this global crisis,” said Pratt, from the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States.

“We need to look to the full body of international law. And we do need to do this because of equity and justice. Every human being on this planet has a right to live a worthwhile life,” she added.

‘Reverberate across the world’

The 15-judge ICJ panel has been tasked with crafting a so-called advisory opinion to answer two questions.

Firstly, what legal obligations do nations have to prevent climate change? Secondly, what are the legal consequences for countries whose emissions have harmed the environment, especially that of developing states?

This second question is where many vulnerable countries hope the ICJ will clarify a legal requirement for historic emitters to stump up for the damage caused.

“We do need to look at historical responsibilities and hold those emitters, mainly colonial powers, to account,” said Pratt.

“That certainly is something that we from the global south will be hoping to hear,” she added, mentioning that many of her member countries were servicing “unsustainable debt.”

The ICJ’s advisory opinion is non-binding and will take many months to emerge.

Nikki Reisch, Director of the climate and energy programme at the Center for International Environmental Law, said the ruling would “reverberate across the world.”

“This is the world’s highest court and their opinion will carry weight…. there is an opportunity for this court to break through the impunity that we’ve seen for decades and to affirm the basis for accountability,” she told AFP.

“It’s not just about paying compensation for the mounting cost of climate change. It’s about structural reforms, debt cancellation, ecosystem restoration,” she added.

‘Life and death’

The countries Pratt represents have a population of 1.3 billion but produce three percent of global emissions, she noted.

After bitterly fought COP29 climate talks, wealthy polluters agreed to find at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to help poorer countries’ transition to clean energy and prepare for an increase in extreme weather.

“The pledges are really quite insignificant,” said Pratt.

Several top polluters have argued it is impossible to enshrine into international law a responsibility for past emissions and the damage caused.

“We’ve seen time and again here in these halls that the fossil fuel giants… have urged this court to ignore history, to sweep their historical conduct, the decades of conduct that has brought the world to the brink, under the rug,” said Reisch.

The hearings have also been notable for representatives of tiny island states, often in colourful national dress, recounting searing stories of the devastation suffered by their people.

“These hearings have put into stark relief that this is a matter of life and death for so many people,” Reisch told AFP.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

When it comes to global institutions, why is the world so polarised? In particular, what explains the policy of the U.S. on enforcing rules on Israel?

Trita Parsi: Put simply, this is a genocide and we can see it happening live, on our phones. The Lancet estimates the toll to be over 1,86,000 because 43,000 is only the number of bodies that have been counted in hospitals. So, I’m not surprised by the world’s outrage in comparison to what was felt over [Russia’s invasion] of Ukraine. Roughly, 700 children were killed in Ukraine through Russian bombardment over two-and-a-half years. More than 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza in about a year already. The intensity of this exceeds anything we have seen in any modern war.

What is surprising is America’s reaction. The Biden administration, in particular, has violated its own regulations to allow the Israeli government to do exactly what it wants. This has never happened before. The U.S. is shifting away from supporting the same international institutions, regulations, and laws that it played a crucial role in establishing. The first shift was away from international law to what it calls the ‘rules-based international order’. The rules-based order is not centred on law; it is centred on rules, and it is unclear who makes those rules. In reality, it ends up being a coalition or a willing partnership of countries, mostly allies, which is not universally accepted or applicable. This is what we are seeing when it comes to the ICC warrants as well.

Navtej Sarna: The U.S. has a sort of umbilical relationship with Israel. The U.S. has treated Israel as if it is a part of the U.S. which needs to be protected at all costs. Now the protection is for strategic reasons, but also because Israel represents a sort of a moral burden. It is the Jewish homeland, and after the Holocaust, there is a need to protect all Israelis and not let them lose the homeland. In the view of the U.S., Israel is also a democracy, a vulnerable democracy in a very hard neighbourhood, the only democracy in West Asia. While it is unstated so far, Israel is also believed to be a nuclear power, and one that can be a deterrent against another potential nuclear power that could be Iran. Now there are some contradictions: Israel’s democracy comes up against the fact that it has also been an occupying power and it is no longer vulnerable. But that has been overlooked because of the U.S.’s need to protect Israel for the other reasons I mentioned, particularly after the October 7 terror attacks by Hamas.

Israel has said the ICC warrant makes no sense because it is not a member state of the ICC, much like how India isn’t, and doesn’t submit to its jurisdiction. Can a warrant still be issued against Prime Minister Netanyahu?

Trita Parsi: Of course it can, because Israel is conducting war crimes in another country’s territory [Palestine]. This was an issue that the ICC had to address before taking up this issue.

Navtej Sarna: More than the ICC warrant, it is necessary to look at what has been done to international humanitarian law on the ground. Countries may react to the warrants one way or the other, but the sad part is that international humanitarian law has been flouted for months in [full] visibility of the world. Therefore, everybody has a responsibility to bear for allowing the [bombardment of Gaza to continue]. The U.S. has simply been putting up a diplomatic performance. If it really wanted to stop this, it could have.

Why didn’t India join the ICC and what is its position on this warrant now?

Navtej Sarna: The ICC has only 124 member states. India participated in the negotiations in the preparatory stages that led up to the setting up of the ICC in 2002. India participated in the negotiations of the Rome Statute. But it did not sign it or ratify it. India negotiates in good faith and when it finds that it can’t agree to some of the terms, it doesn’t sign. It is better than signing and flouting the terms. The reasons for not signing at the time were many. The Indian government felt that the ICC did not give sufficient place for national administrative and judicial institutions to deal with such crimes and it did not recognise the use of nuclear weapons and the use of other weapons of mass destruction as a crime which could be punished. It also did not recognise terrorism as a punishable crime against humanity, which, I think, was probably the breaking point for India, which had been a victim of terrorism for decades. Regarding the present ICC warrants [in the cases of both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Mr. Netanyahu], India has made it clear that it does not have much faith in the ICC.

At the UN Security Council (UNSC), there has been a logjam over votes involving Israel and Russia. Even in cases where the UNSC has passed resolutions, such as Afghanistan and Myanmar, the regimes in power are flouting directions with impunity. Are we reaching a point where the international world order, as is defined by these institutions, is unable to function? What would it take to make states including Israel compliant?

Navtej Sarna: It is clear that UNSC resolutions don’t mean a thing any more. In the case of Israel, the U.S. veto is used almost automatically. Naturally, Russia is going to use its veto for its own purposes, to protect itself, as it has in the past few years. The fact remains that the situation in which the UN was formed has changed from 1945. So even if the UNSC believes it can still deliver, the truth is it cannot. Every country has decided to live on a transactional, immediate short-term policy paradigm. There are no ‘value-based international relations’ today. It is not as if countries did not work in national interest earlier, but the brazenness with which we see ‘realpolitik’ used is at a different level. Until this situation changes — and I don’t see any signs of that — this kind of breakdown of international systems will probably increase.

Trita Parsi: I agree that we are in a very bad situation. However, I don’t think there is a collective desire not to have any rules and laws that will guide state to state conduct at this point. We can point to all of these examples in which clearly the system has not worked, but those are perhaps 5% of the situations. Of the interactions that are taking place in the world, there are many in which laws are being followed.

The UNSC absolutely needs reform. It has become a joke and at some point, it will become irrelevant. Things are going to get worse, but there is going to be a tipping point in which a critical mass of countries will recognise that it is actually in their interest to have a functioning global order and effective institutions that help uphold international conventions and laws.

Do you see Israel being brought to account internationally, or a ceasefire in Gaza any time soon, especially given the upcoming change in U.S. administration?

Trita Parsi: There is a likelihood of a ceasefire because incoming U.S. President Donald Trump will take a tough position on ending the war. While he has shown little regard for global institutions, and sees transactional value in backing Israel, I think he does not want to see the U.S. get dragged into another war in West Asia.

Navtej Sarna: I think Mr. Trump’s main motivation would be to show himself as the ultimate winner who can say he delivered on his campaign promise to stop the wars. But a ceasefire will not mean peace. Mr. Trump’s next step will be to want to go back to the Abraham Accords, which will be more difficult than it was in Trump 1.0 (2017-2021). The landscape has changed considerably for the countries that signed the accords (the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco) and those that the U.S. was trying to bring on board (Saudi Arabia). There won’t be a return to peace or negotiations until the heart of the problem is addressed, which is the need for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Listen to the conversation in The Hindu Parley podcast

A view of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands on Wednesday (June 26, 2024).
| Photo Credit: AP

Bolivia has joined South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that alleges the Israeli Gaza offensive breaches the U.N. Genocide Convention, the court said on Wednesday (October 9, 2024).

The South American country is the latest of several nations, including Colombia, Libya, Spain and Mexico, to add their weight to the case against Israel, which vehemently denies the accusations.

Bolivia already announced in November it was severing diplomatic ties over what it described as the “disproportionate” attacks on Gaza by Israel. At the time, Israel slammed the move as “a surrender to terrorism”.

In a January 26 ruling that made headlines around the world, the ICJ told Israel to do everything possible to prevent acts of genocide during its military operations in Gaza.

The court has also ordered Israel to ensure “unimpeded access” to U.N.-mandated investigators to look into allegations of genocide.

South Africa has returned several times to the ICJ, arguing that the dire humanitarian situation in the territory compels the court to issue further fresh emergency measures.

In its submission to the court made public on Wednesday (October 9, 2024), Bolivia argued: “Israel’s genocidal war continues, and the Court’s orders remain dead letters to Israel.” While ICJ rulings are legally binding, the court has no concrete means to enforce them.

Also Read: ICJ orders Israel to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza

In a separate ruling in July, the ICJ issued an “advisory opinion” that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory was “unlawful” and should end as soon as possible.

Israel’s Gaza campaign has killed at least 42,010 people, the majority of them civilians, according to figures provided by the Hamas-run territory’s health ministry. The U.N. has described the figures as reliable.

The offensive was prompted by Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack which resulted in the deaths of 1,205 people in Israel, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on Israeli official figures that include hostages killed in captivity.

Israel has intensified strikes on Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon since September 23, leaving more than 1,150 people dead, according to an AFP tally of official figures.

The international community must do its part to stop the genocide; it must put the necessary pressure on Israel and its supporters,” Turkiye’s Foreign Minister said. File
| Photo Credit: AP

“Turkiye on Wednesday (August 7, 2024) filed a request with a U.N. court to join South Africa’s lawsuit accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza,” Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said.

Turkiye’s ambassador to the Netherlands, accompanied by a group of Turkish legislators, submitted a declaration of intervention to the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

With the development, Turkiye, one of the fiercest critics of Israel’s actions in Gaza, becomes the latest nation seeking to participate in the case. Spain, Mexico, Colombia, Nicaragua and Libya have also asked to join the case, as have Palestinian officials. The court’s decision on their requests is still pending.

“We have just submitted our application to the International Court of Justice to intervene in the genocide case filed against Israel,” he wrote on the social media platform X. “Emboldened by the impunity for its crimes, Israel is killing more and more innocent Palestinians every day. The international community must do its part to stop the genocide; it must put the necessary pressure on Israel and its supporters,” he said.

“Turkiye will make every effort to do so,” he added. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has accused Israel of genocide, called for it to be punished in international courts and criticised Western nations for backing Israel. In May, Turkiye suspended trade with Israel, citing its assault on Gaza.

In contrast to Western nations that have designated Hamas a terrorist organisation, Erdogan has commended the group, calling it a liberation movement.

South Africa brought a case to the International Court of Justice late last year, accusing Israel of violating the genocide convention through its military operations in Gaza.

Israel has strongly rejected accusations of genocide and has argued that the war in Gaza is a legitimate defensive action against Hamas militants for their October 7 attack in southern Israel that killed around 1,200 people and in which 250 hostages were taken.

If admitted to the case, the countries who joined would be able to make written submissions and speak at public hearings.

Preliminary hearings have already been held in the genocide case against Israel, but the court is expected to take years to reach a final decision.

In a statement to the media, Hamas welcomed Turkiye’s request to join the lawsuit and said it affirms Erdogan’s support for the Palestinian cause.

“No country in the world is above international law,” Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Oncu Keceli said on X earlier. “The case at the International Court of Justice is extremely important in terms of ensuring that the crimes committed by Israel do not go unpunished.” Keceli also called for the immediate implementations of precautionary measures ordered by the court, including a halt to military offensive and an increase in humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Since Erdogan took power in 2003, former allies Turkiye and Israel have experienced a volatile relationship, marked by periods of severe friction and reconciliation. The war in Gaza has disrupted the most recent attempts at normalising ties.

People protest on the day of a public hearing held by The International Court of Justice (ICJ) to allow parties to give their views on the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories before eventually issuing a non-binding legal opinion, in The Hague, Netherlands, on February 21, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on July 19 ruled that Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestinian territory was “illegal” and should come to an end “as rapidly as possible”. In a historic but non-binding advisory opinion rendered by the 15-judge panel, the U.N.’s top court found multiple breaches of international law by Israel including activities that amounted to apartheid.

Notably, the court underscored that other states are under an obligation to neither recognise the occupation as lawful nor aid or assist it — a directive with profound implications for Israel’s allies. The opinion was issued in response to a request from the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) in 2022. While it predates the Israel-Hamas conflict, it is likely to amplify pressure on Israel to bring an end to its ongoing military offensive which has killed more than 38,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health.

In a separate case instituted by South Africa, the ICJ is already considering allegations that Israel is committing genocide in its military campaign in Gaza. A preliminary ruling has already been issued, instructing Israel to prevent and punish any incitement to genocide and to enhance provisions for humanitarian aid. In May, the world court ordered Israel to halt its offensive on Rafah, a city in southern Gaza, citing “immense risk” to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians taking shelter there. However, Israel has continued its attack in defiance of the court order.

Advisory jurisdiction

The ICJ wields dual jurisdictional powers — resolving legal disputes between member states and rendering legal opinions on matters referred to by U.N. organs and specialized agencies. While advisory opinions issued through the latter are non-binding, they carry significant legal weight and moral authority, capable of influencing diplomatic relations. In December 2022, the UNGA adopted a resolution seeking the court’s advisory opinion on the “legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.” Introduced by Nicaragua, the resolution was passed with 87 votes in favour, 26 against, and 53 abstentions.

Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem – territories historically sought by Palestinians for their statehood aspirations. It has since built settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and steadily expanded them. While Israeli troops and settlements were withdrawn from Gaza in 2005, the expansion of settlements in the West Bank continued unabated. In recent months, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right government has used its war on Gaza as a pretext to expand these settlements at a rate faster than seen in the previous decades.

Although Israel abstained from participating in the proceedings, it filed a written statement contending that an advisory opinion would be “harmful” to attempts made to resolve the conflict since the questions posed by the UNGA were prejudiced. The last time the UNGA asked the ICJ for an advisory opinion on Palestine was in 2004 when the court ruled that Israel’s construction of a wall predominantly within the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem violated international law. Israel was ordered to halt the construction of the wall and dismantle parts of it, while the U.N. was asked to consider additional measures to end the illegal construction. Despite the ruling, Israel unilaterally altered the wall’s route. Nearly two decades later, the situation has only worsened, with the separation wall extending over 700km, and 85% of its route located inside the occupied West Bank.

‘Occupation’ under international law

Under international law, “occupation” refers to a situation when during an international armed conflict, a territory, or parts thereof, comes under the effective provisional control of a foreign power, even if it is not met with armed resistance. The most widely accepted definition of an occupation has been codified in Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. The provision stipulates that a “ territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised”. However, an occupation must be temporary and cannot entail any transfer of sovereignty to the occupying power.

Once a territory is seized, the occupying power assumes specific obligations toward individuals within the occupied territory, as outlined in the 1907 Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 alongside norms of customary international humanitarian law. These obligations include ensuring that provisions of food and medical care are extended to the population of an occupied territory and prohibition on the use or threat of force against civilians.

Court’s findings

Acknowledging that international law does not specify any temporal limit for an occupation, the ICJ observed that the prolonged duration of an occupation does not inherently change its legal status under international humanitarian law. Instead, the court said, that the legality of such an occupation is determined by the occupying power’s “policies and practices and the manner in which they are implemented and applied on the ground”.

“This advisory opinion holds immense importance as it declares the continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories unlawful under international law”, Dr. Başak Çalı, professor of international law and director of the Centre for Fundamental Rights at the Hertie School, Berlin told The Hindu. “The court reached this conclusion by finding that Israel abused its position as an occupying power by annexing Palestinian territories, asserting permanent control over them and consistently denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination”.

It was highlighted that a wide array of Israel’s military measures such as the building and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the use of the area’s natural resources, the annexation and imposition of permanent control over lands violate “the prohibition of the use of force in international relations,” rendering Israel’s ongoing occupation illegal.

“The court also found that Israeli laws and policies constitute systemic discrimination, based amongst others on race, religion and ethnic origin in violation of three human rights treaties ratified by Israel — the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1954 (ICESCR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1954 (ICCPR), and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965 (ICERD)“, Dr. Çalı added.

In recent years, international human rights groups have asserted that the Israeli military’s administration of the West Bank and East Jerusalem has transitioned into apartheid. They have cited the presence of separate courts for Israelis and Palestinians, as well as the implementation of a residence permit system and segregated roads exclusively for Palestinians, to substantiate their claims. Concurring with this, the judges underscored that such policies maintain “near-complete separation” between the settler and Palestinian communities in clear violation of Article 3 of the ICERD which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid.

Accordingly, the ICJ called upon Israel to bring an end to this unlawful occupation “as rapidly as possible”, cease new settlement activities and make reparations to all affected people for the damage caused. It also outlined that the U.N. and its principal organs such as the UNGA should consider additional modalities to ensure Israel’s compliance with this directive. Other member states were also ordered to not “render aid or assistance in maintaining” Israel’s presence in the occupied territories.

What lies ahead?

According to Dr. Prabhash Ranjan, professor at the Jindal Global Law School, the opinion is bound to intensify international pressure on Israel. “This decision vindicates the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people and rebukes Israel’s continued occupation and its policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. While it might not immediately halt the military offensive in Gaza, it significantly dents Israel’s credibility”, he said.

However, Dr. Ranjan pointed out that since Israel has already refuted the court’s findings, it is unlikely to reconsider its stance without increased diplomatic pressure from the Western powers.

Highlighting the potential impact of the opinion on other cases before the ICJ and the International Criminal Court (ICC), Dr. Çalı noted, “While the temporal context, subject matter, and factual analysis of this advisory opinion differ from other ongoing proceedings related to the conflict, the court’s findings are so significant that all parties involved in those proceedings will undoubtedly take careful note of them.”

Washington:

The U.S. criticized “the breadth” of the top U.N. court’s opinion that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal, with Washington saying it would complicate efforts to resolve the conflict.

“We have been clear that Israel’s program of government support for settlements is both inconsistent with international law and obstructs the cause of peace,” a U.S. State Department spokesperson said on Saturday in an email.

“However, we are concerned that the breadth of the court’s opinion will complicate efforts to resolve the conflict,” the State Department added.

The International Court of Justice, or the World Court, said on Friday that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories and settlements was illegal and should be ended as soon as possible, delivering its strongest findings to date on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The State Department said the ICJ opinion that Israel must withdraw as soon as possible from the Palestinian territories was “inconsistent with the established framework” for resolving the conflict.

Washington said that framework took into account Israel’s security needs, which it says were highlighted by the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel by Palestinian Islamist group Hamas. Those attacks killed 1,200, with around 250 people taken as hostages, according to Israeli tallies.

Two-State Solution

The advisory opinion by ICJ judges is not binding but carries weight under international law and may weaken support for Israel.

The State Department said the way forward was through direct negotiations.

“Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the regime associated with them, have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law,” ICJ President Nawaf Salam said on Friday while reading the findings of a 15-judge panel.

The court said Israel’s obligations include paying restitution for harm and “the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements”.

Israel rejected the opinion and said a political settlement can only be reached through negotiations. The office of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas welcomed the opinion, which it called historic.

The State Department said it “strongly discourages” parties from using the ICJ opinion “as a pretext for further unilateral actions that deepen divisions or for supplanting a negotiated two-state solution.”

The ICJ case stems from a 2022 request for a legal opinion from the United Nations General Assembly. It predates Israel’s war in Gaza, which began after the Oct. 7 attacks and has killed almost 39,000, according to the health ministry in Gaza, which has been under Hamas rule, while causing a hunger crisis, displacing Gaza’s nearly entire 2.3 million people and spurring genocide allegations that Israel denies.

The ICJ opinion said the U.N. Security Council, the General Assembly and all states have an obligation not to recognize the occupation as legal nor “render aid or assistance” toward maintaining Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories.

Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem – which the Palestinians want for a state – in the Six-Day War in 1967 and has since built and expanded settlements in the West Bank.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Presiding Judge Nawaf Salam reads the ruling in the International Court of Justice, or World Court in The Hague, Netherlands on July 19, 2024, as the United Nations top court is delivered a non-binding advisory opinion on the legality of Israel’s 57-year occupation of lands sought for a Palestinian state.
| Photo Credit: AP

The U.N.’s top court on July 19 said Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestinian territory was “illegal” and needed to end as soon as possible.

The advisory opinion of The Hague-based International Court of Justice is not binding, but it comes amid mounting concern over Israel’s war against Hamas sparked by the group’s brutal October 7 attacks.

“The court has found that Israel’s continued presence in the Palestinian Territories is illegal,” ICJ presiding judge Nawaf Salam said, adding: “Israel must end the occupation as rapidly as possible.”

The ICJ added that Israel was “under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities and to evacuate all settlers” from occupied land.

Israel’s policies and practices including the building of new settlements and Israel’s continued maintainance of a wall between the territories “amount to annexation of large parts” of the occupied territory, it said.

Netanyahu slams ruling as a ‘decision of lies’

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the court had made a “decision of lies”.

“The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land — not in our eternal capital Jerusalem, nor in our ancestral heritage of Judea and Samaria (the occupied West Bank),” Mr. Netanyahu said in a statement.

“No decision of lies in The Hague will distort this historical truth, and similarly, the legality of Israeli settlements in all parts of our homeland cannot be disputed.”

A separate, high-profile case that South Africa has brought before the court alleges that Israel has committed genocidal acts during its Gaza offensive.

‘Extreme danger’

The U.N’s General Assembly asked the ICJ in late 2022 to give an “advisory opinion” on the “legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”.

The ICJ held a week-long session in February to hear submissions from countries following the request — supported by most countries within the Assembly.

During the hearings, most speakers called on Israel to end its 57-year occupation. They warned a prolonged occupation posed an “extreme danger” to stability in the Middle East and beyond.

But the United States said Israel should not be legally obliged to withdraw without taking its “very real security needs” into account.

Israel did not take part in the oral hearings.

Instead, it submitted a written contribution in which it described the questions the court had been asked as “prejudicial” and “tendentious”.

‘Ongoing violation’

The General Assembly asked the ICJ to consider two questions.

Firstly, the court should examine the legal consequences of what the U.N. called “the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination”.

This relates to the “prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967” and “measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem”.

In June 1967, Israel crushed some of its Arab neighbours in a six-day war, seizing the West Bank including east Jerusalem from Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt.

Israel then began to settle the 70,000 sq. km of seized Arab territory.

The U.N. later declared the occupation of Palestinian territory illegal, and Cairo regained Sinai under its 1979 peace deal with Israel.

Non-binding opinion

The ICJ was also asked to look into the consequences of what it described as Israel’s “adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures”.

Secondly, the ICJ was asked to advise on how Israel’s actions “affect the legal status of the occupation” and what are the consequences for the U.N. and other countries.

The ICJ rules in disputes between states. Normally, its judgements are binding but it has few means to enforce them.

In this case however, the opinion is non-binding, although most advisory opinions are in fact acted upon.

The ICJ has previously issued advisory opinions on the legality of Kosovo’s 2008 declaration of independence from Serbia and apartheid South Africa’s occupation of Namibia.

It also handed down an opinion in 2004 declaring that parts of the wall erected by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory were illegal and should be torn down.

Israel has not complied with the ICJ ruling, and has resisted calls to route the barrier along the Green Line, the 1949 Armistice Line established after the end of fighting that accompanied Israel’s establishment a year earlier.

Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, right, gestures as he speaks to Russian Chief of General Staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov prior to a meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin with the top military brass in Moscow, Russia, on December 19, 2023.
| Photo Credit: AP

The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants on June 25 for Russia’s former Defence Minister and its military chief of staff for attacking civilian targets in Ukraine.

The court is accusing former Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and chief of staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov of war crimes and the crime against humanity of inhumane acts.

The court said in a statement that warrants were issued because judges considered there were reasonable grounds to believe that the men are responsible for “missile strikes carried out by the Russian armed forces against the Ukrainian electric infrastructure” from October 10, 2022 until at least March 9, 2023.

“During this time-frame, a large number of strikes against numerous electric power plants and sub-stations were carried out by the Russian armed forces in multiple locations in Ukraine,” the court added.

Click here for full coverage of Russia Ukraine war

There is no immediate likelihood of either suspect being detained. Russia isn’t a member of the global court, doesn’t recognize its jurisdiction and refuses to hand over suspects.

Last year, the court also issued a warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, accusing him of personal responsibility for the abductions of children from Ukraine.

Mr. Putin replaced Mr. Shoigu as Defence minister in a Cabinet shakeup in May as he began his fifth term as President. He appointed Mr. Shoigu as secretary of Russia’s Security Council, the Kremlin said.

The story so far: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on May 24 ordered Israel to halt its military operations in the southern Gaza city of Rafah in a ruling that can further the country’s international isolation and escalate demands for a ceasefire more than seven months into the war triggered by Hamas’ October 7 attack. This is the third time that the United Nation’s top court has issued preliminary orders to alleviate humanitarian suffering in Gaza.

However, in the absence of direct enforcement mechanisms, the Court’s decisions are often defied despite being legally binding. A day after the ruling, Israeli air strikes ravaged Rafah — an indication that the country remains unwilling to change its course.

Friday’s ruling was delivered in a case instituted by South Africa accusing Israel of genocide and citing “immense risk” to the Palestinian population. Its latest request pointed out that the Hague-based Court’s January 26 provisional measures were not sufficient to address “a brutal military attack on the sole remaining refuge for the people of Gaza.” In another significant intervention in the conflict, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on May 20 announced his decision to apply for arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas leaders, including Yahya Sinwar, the leader of the outfit, for the alleged commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

‘Change in the situation’

Similar to interim injunctions issued by national courts, provisional measures issued by the ICJ seek to freeze combat operations to preserve the integrity of a future final judgment. Before the passage of such an interim order, the Court must be satisfied that it has prima facie jurisdiction, that there is a “plausible” link between the rights asserted by South Africa and the measures it requests and a risk of irreparable harm and urgency.

As per Article 76 of the Rules of Court (1978), the Court has the power to “revoke or modify” any decision concerning provisional measures if it finds that “some change in the situation” has taken place. In a ruling supported by a majority of 13-2 judges, the ICJ said that the humanitarian situation in Rafah is now “disastrous” — meaning the Court’s previously issued provisional measures were insufficient.

It thus acknowledged that the “repeated large-scale displacement of the already extremely vulnerable Palestinian population” constitutes “a change in the situation” within the meaning of the Court’s rules.

The ICJ relied upon a host of UN reports to underscore the “immense risks” associated with Israel’s continuous military strikes in Rafah. For instance, it noted that on May 6, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) had indicated that half of the approximately 1.2 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah were children and that Israel’s hostilities could result in the destruction of “the few remaining basic services and infrastructure.” It was further pointed out that the al-Najjar Hospital, one of the last remaining medical facilities in the Rafah Governorate, was no longer functional, and that the World Food Programme (WFP) had been unable to access its warehouse in the region leading to a disastrous hunger crisis.

Concerns not ‘sufficiently dispelled’

Perusing the evidence on record, UN’s top court observed that Israel had failed to undertake sufficient measures to adequately evacuate and protect from violence thousands of civilians in the Gaza Strip, particularly in Rafah. It also highlighted the inability of Tel Aviv to provide “sufficient information” on the steps taken to supply humanitarian aid in the form of water, sanitation, food and medicine to the 800,000 evacuated Palestinians.

Crucially, the Court found Israel’s assurances unconvincing, writing that it has not “sufficiently addressed and dispelled the concerns raised by its military offensive in Rafah.”

Provisional measures

At the outset, the Court outlined that the prior provisional measures indicated in its orders of January 26, 2024, and March 28, 2024, “must be immediately and effectively implemented.”

It then proceeded to rule that Tel Aviv, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, 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.”

Israel was further asked to keep the Rafah crossing with Egypt open for the “unhindered” delivery of humanitarian assistance and allow UN investigators to access the Gaza Strip to collect evidence about the alleged war crimes.

Although no interim order was issued, the judges reiterated that they were deeply concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during Hamas’ attack on October 7, 2023, and accordingly called for their immediate and unconditional release.

In conclusion, the ICJ directed Israel to submit a report detailing its steps to ensure compliance with its directives within one month of the ruling. South Africa will consequently have a chance to respond to this report. However, despite South Africa’s fervent pleas, the Court has once again refused to issue any interim order calling for a ceasefire.

Implications

Since the ICJ lacks any direct enforcement mechanisms, the only way for the interim order to be implemented is if the UN Security Council shows willingness to act on it. But the United States, Israel’s strongest ally, has repeatedly used its veto powers to shield Tel Aviv from demands for a ceasefire. However, on March 25, it abstained from voting on a similar UN resolution, signalling a change in the Biden administration’s policy towards the war.

The U.S. has long maintained that Israel’s military operations in Rafah are “limited” and that it would not support any major ground offensive without a credible plan to protect civilians. However, given that both the top international courts have raised concerns about Israel’s operations, Washington’s stance on upholding international law appears inconsistent when it comes to defending its allies.

Israeli officials have interpreted Friday’s ruling as a “limited order” that instructs it to abide by the Genocide Convention during its activities in Rafah, but does not require a complete halt to military operations there. “The order in regard to the Rafah operation is not a general order,” an official told Reuters on condition of anonymity, highlighting that the phrasing of the ICJ ruling does not rule out all military action.

However, Tel Aviv’s continued defiance seems to be increasingly turning international public opinion against it. Last week, Norway, Ireland and Spain announced that they would unilaterally recognise a Palestine state.

Adil Ahmad Haque, law professor and Judge Jon O. Newman scholar at Rutgers Law School agreed that the Court’s order is “somewhat ambiguous”. He wrote that a plausible interpretation of the ruling could mean that Israel must immediately halt its military operations in Rafah to the extent that it may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza “conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. However, Mr. Haque maintained that the present offensive, as currently planned and executed, is prohibited under any reading of the order.

Principal Deputy Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel Tamar Kaplan Tourgman (left) and Legal Adviser at Israeli Embassy to the Netherlands Avgail Frisch Ben Avraham attend a court session in The Hague on May 17, 2024.
| Photo Credit: AFP

Israel strongly denied charges of genocide on May 17, telling the United Nations’ top court it was doing everything it could to protect the civilian population during its military operation in Gaza.

The International Court of Justice wrapped up a third round of hearings on emergency measures requested by South Africa, which says Israel’s military incursion in the southern city of Rafah threatens the “very survival of Palestinians in Gaza” and has asked the court to order a ceasefire.

Tamar Kaplan-Tourgeman, one of Israel’s legal team, defended the country’s conduct, saying it had allowed in fuel and medication to the beleaguered enclave.

“Israel takes extraordinary measures in order to minimise the harm to civilians in Gaza,” she told The Hague-based court.

A protester shouting “Liars” briefly interrupted Kaplan-Tourgeman’s final remarks. The hearing was paused for less than a minute while security guards escorted a woman from the public gallery.

South Africa told the court on Thursday that the situation in the beleaguered enclave has reached “a new and horrific stage” and urged judges to order a half to Israeli military operations.

The court was holding a third round of hearings on emergency measures requested by South Africa since it first filed its genocide case at the end of last year.

According to the latest request, South Africa says Israel’s military incursion in Rafah threatens the “very survival of Palestinians in Gaza”.

In January, judges ordered Israel to do all it can to prevent death, destruction and any acts of genocide in Gaza, but the panel stopped short of ordering an end to the military offensive. Judges will now deliberate on the request and are expected to issue a decision in the next weeks.

ICJ judges have broad powers to order a cease-fire and other measures, though the court doesn’t have its own enforcement apparatus. A 2022 order by the court demanding that Russia halt its full-scale invasion of Ukraine has so far gone unheeded.

Most of Gaza’s population of 2.3 million people have been displaced since fighting began.

The war began with a Hamas attack on southern Israel on October 7 in which Palestinian militants killed around 1,200 people and took about 250 hostages. More than 35,000 Palestinians have been killed in the war, Gaza’s Health Ministry says, without distinguishing between civilians and combatants in its count.

South Africa initiated proceedings in December 2023 and sees the legal campaign as rooted in issues central to its identity. Its governing party, the African National Congress, has long compared Israel’s policies in Gaza and the occupied West Bank to its own history under the apartheid regime of white minority rule, which restricted most Blacks to “homelands.” Apartheid ended in 1994.