The UN Court avoids demanding a ceasefire in Gaza but demands that Israel take measures to prevent genocide

The United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ) this Friday ordered Israel to adopt all necessary measures to prevent acts of genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza, although it has avoided adopting the most emphatic measure: demanding a ceasefire in Gaza. the fringe.

The judges have not asked the Jewish State to stop its military offensive in the enclave, which has already left more than 26,000 dead, but the demand that Israel allow "the delivery of essential humanitarian aid urgently needed by the Palestinians" shows that the court, the highest judicial body of the UN, is “aware of the human tragedy that is taking place in the area”, as its president, Joan Donoghue, has indicated.

The order of the court, based in The Hague, derives from the lawsuit presented at the end of December by South Africa to the ICJ, with the argument that Israel supposedly has “genocidal intention” against the Palestinian population (more than 1% of the population of the Palestinian enclave has died due to the military incursion).

To this end, he invoked the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, to which both countries are parties, and which must guarantee the protection of the population of Gaza.

South Africa also stressed in its allegations that what happened in the Strip "exceeds legitimate defense."

South Africa demanded precautionary measures to avoid this situation of possible genocide.

This Friday's decision refers only to those requested emergency measures.

The substance of the issue—whether or not genocide has been committed in Gaza—may take years to resolve.

More information

War between Israel and Gaza, live

Among the measures dictated by the ICJ is the demand that Israel ensure that its troops do not commit acts of a genocidal nature;

that incitement to genocide be prevented and punished;

and that the destruction of evidence of crimes be avoided.

In addition, Israel must inform the ICJ of compliance with these measures within one month.

During the reading of the decision, Donoghue made it clear that the court is fully aware of the context in which events are unfolding.

Not only because of what Israel does in Gaza, but also because of the reasons it gives for launching its offensive after the Hamas attack on October 7.

That is why he has described the humanitarian situation in Gaza as “catastrophic”, and has said that there is “urgency due to the risk that the situation will worsen”, but he has also alluded to Hamas.

In this context, the court has urged “the immediate and unconditional release of the Israeli hostages who are in the hands of the Islamist militia, and other groups.”

The TIJ's decision has been one of the most complicated faced by this court and has been surrounded by political tension.

“It has carefully considered the allegations made against Israel by United Nations experts and officials to justify its measures,” says Asier Garrido Muñoz, former ICJ lawyer, on the phone.

In his opinion, although the cessation of hostilities has not been requested, “the judges have gone as far as the convention allowed them.”

And the section on the entry of humanitarian assistance into Gaza “indicates that the court understands the terrible humanitarian situation of the Palestinian population.”

Does this ordinance isolate Israel?

“International pressure on Israel will from now on be very strong so that if it does not stop the military operation, it will at least carry it out in a very different way from the current one,” he points out.

Although the precautionary measures are binding on the parties, it is possible that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government will not comply with them because the court does not have the capacity to guarantee compliance.

Hence the use of the executive mechanism applied by judges asking Israel for reports on what it is doing.

Article 41 of the ICJ Statute in turn indicates that it must inform the UN Security Council about the decision adopted.

The Council can remind Israel to comply with what the judges have ordered, or take its own measures.

It is not obliged to do the latter and, if it does so, it relies on the Charter of the United Nations.

The court has been made up of 17 judges: the 15 ordinary ones plus two other

ad hoc

ones, appointed by the parties in dispute, who did not have one of their nationality.

On the Israeli side, Aharon Barak, former president of the Supreme Court of his country, has intervened.

He has voted for humanitarian aid to be allowed into Gaza, and for Israel to prevent and penalize incitement to genocide.

Dikgang Moseneke, who was vice president of the Supreme Court, intervened on the South African side.

If South Africa moves forward with this case from now on, the merits will be evaluated and Israel may file preliminary objections to the court's jurisdiction.

Overall, a ruling on whether there has been genocide in Gaza could take several years.

Follow all the international information on

Facebook

and

X

, or in

our weekly newsletter

.

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I am already a subscriber

_