The January 26th provisional ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordering Israel to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza is a landmark verdict. It is a moral victory for the beleaguered Palestinian people and a high point for the courageous and principled diplomacy of South Africa. Having fought apartheid, South Africa befittingly took the lead to bring the case against Israel, knowing well that this may ruffle many feathers in capitals backing Israel. This initiative has raised its stature in the Global South.
The World Court’s decision mandated six interim measures, directing Israel to refrain from actions violating the Genocide Convention, curb and penalise explicit and public instigation of genocide, and promptly implement effective measures for providing humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza. Importantly, the Court also directed Israel to safeguard evidence of genocide and submit a report within a month outlining all actions taken to comply with the Court’s orders. It is ironic that the 1951 Genocide Convention, in large part, was meant to prevent the recurrence of genocides like the holocaust. The six provisional measures were supported by an overwhelming majority of the 17-member panel of judges. The Israeli ad hoc judge Aharon Barak cast negative votes in four orders, while Judge Julia Sebutinde (Uganda) cast all 6 dissenting votes, believing that the matter was essentially political. Subsequently, the Ugandan government distanced itself from her views and expressed support for South Africa’s position. The ruling was applauded by a vast number of countries and human rights watchdogs. The Secretary-General of Amnesty International was quick to assert that the order “sends a clear message that the world will not stand by in silence as Israel pursues a ruthless military campaign to decimate the population of the Gaza Strip and unleash death, horror and suffering against Palestinians on an unprecedented scale”. The Israeli Prime Minister remained defiant saying “no one will stop us, not The Hague”.
Balance of China’s loans to small businesses totals 70.9tr yuans By the time ICJ announced its interim verdict, the death toll from the ruthless and indiscriminate Israeli attacks on Gaza stood at almost 26,000, (presently, this number has surpassed 30,000) mostly women and children. Another 7,000 were reportedly buried under rubble, presumed dead. Roughly 85% of the Gaza population was displaced and around 93 percent of the population faced acute hunger.
Soon after the ICJ ruling, in a bizarre twist, around a dozen Western countries including the US, the UK, Australia and Germany declared that they were suspending funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), following Israel’s accusation of involvement of the relief agency’s staff in Hamas’s October 7 attacks. The UN Secretary-General ordered an investigation. Out of the 12 individuals implicated, nine were immediately identified and terminated by the UNRWA. UN made a fervent appeal for the continuation of humanitarian assistance. As Israel prepared for an offensive against Rafah, South Africa once again approached the ICJ to prevent looming breaches of the Genocide Convention by Israel.
Gold rate declines by Rs1,050 per tola The decisions of the International Court of Justice are final and not subject to appeal. However, this ruling alone is not enough to put a stop to the continuing massacres and destruction in Gaza. The Court does not have enforcement powers. The principal organ of the United Nations entrusted to ensure the maintenance of international peace and security--the Security Council remains deadlocked because of the US vetoes and its outright support for Israel. Only the decisions taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter are enforceable. However, such actions require the support of all five permanent members. Nonetheless, the ICJ verdict has a huge moral weight. It puts a great deal of pressure on Israel and its military backers who run the risk of being seen as the accomplices. The ICJ ruling on genocide in Gaza has rekindled the debate as to why the Kashmir issue or the revocation of Article 370 cannot be challenged in the ICJ. The simple answer is that India has excluded the competence of the ICJ to hear such disputes, by submitting a restrictive declaration under Article 36 of the Statute of the Court. The Indian declaration was first filed in September 1959 which has been twice substituted in September 1974, and then again in September 2019, weeks after India revoked Article 370 of its constitution. Nevertheless, legal experts must examine any such possibility afresh.
2.8m ration bags delivered under Ramazan package in Punjab The verdict, damning for Israel, may contribute towards the urgency of a viable solution to the Palestinian problem. Thomas Friedman writing in the New York Times on 31st January, opined that the US may undertake an unprecedented initiative to promote a de-militarised Palestinian state, as part of a broader ‘Biden Doctrine for the Middle East’. The OIC countries have all along pleaded for an independent state of Palestine. China has also recently asked the Security Council to formulate a concrete timetable and roadmap for a two-state solution. Will Israel relent? The Palestinian people have made unprecedented sacrifices. The path is arduous but not impossible.
Muhammad Haroon Shaukat
The writer is a retired Ambassador and Director of Foreign Affairs at the Centre for Aerospace and Security Studies (CASS), Lahore, Pakistan. He can be reached at casslahore@gmail.com
KP govt reshuffles 4 bureaucrats
Moral Victory
37
0
17.03.2024
The January 26th provisional ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordering Israel to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza is a landmark verdict. It is a moral victory for the beleaguered Palestinian people and a high point for the courageous and principled diplomacy of South Africa. Having fought apartheid, South Africa befittingly took the lead to bring the case against Israel, knowing well that this may ruffle many feathers in capitals backing Israel. This initiative has raised its stature in the Global South.
The World Court’s decision mandated six interim measures, directing Israel to refrain from actions violating the Genocide Convention, curb and penalise explicit and public instigation of genocide, and promptly implement effective measures for providing humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza. Importantly, the Court also directed Israel to safeguard evidence of genocide and submit a report within a month outlining all actions taken to comply with the Court’s orders. It is ironic that the 1951 Genocide Convention, in large part, was meant to prevent the recurrence of genocides like the holocaust. The six provisional measures were supported by an overwhelming majority of the 17-member panel of judges. The Israeli ad hoc judge Aharon Barak cast negative votes in four orders, while Judge Julia Sebutinde (Uganda) cast all 6 dissenting votes, believing that the matter was essentially political. Subsequently, the........
© The Nation
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Rachel Marsden
Donald Low
Bradley Blankenship
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Abbas Juma
Michael Kwet
