Top UN court tells Israel to stop attack on Rafah: What comes next

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the top United Nations Court, on Friday ordered Israel to immediately halt its military offensive in the southern Gaza city of Rafah. But how much weight does this decision actually carry? Can it help halt the killing in West Asia? We explain.

The verdict and its context

The ICJ’s recent decision marks a big moment in the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The court’s president, Nawaf Salam, articulated that the humanitarian situation in Rafah is “disastrous”, prompting the need for immediate action. This ruling follows earlier provisional measures ordered in March, which were deemed insufficient to address the dire conditions in Gaza.

South Africa brought this case to the ICJ under the UN’s Genocide Convention, accusing Israel of actions that could lead to the physical destruction of the Palestinian population in Gaza. The Genocide Convention binds all endorsing states to comply with the treaty. So, countries without a direct connection to an alleged case of genocide can legally bring a complaint forward, according to an essay in The Conversation.

Reading the verdict, Salam stated that Israel 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.” This ruling aims to address the escalating humanitarian crisis in Rafah, where over 35,000 Palestinians have been killed, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. The relentless offensive has decimated neighbourhoods, displaced hundreds of thousands, and plunged parts of Gaza into famine.

The ICJ’s ruling calls for a halt to the offensive, access to Gaza for war crimes investigators, and a substantial increase in humanitarian aid.

The ICJ’s limited enforcement power

The ICJ’s rulings are binding, but the court does not have a police force to enforce its orders.

Israel’s government has already dismissed the charges of genocide brought by South Africa as “false, outrageous and morally repugnant.” From their reaction to the ruling, it is apparent that the country is unlikely to comply with ICJ’s order.

According to Article 94 of the UN Charter, if a party fails to comply with an ICJ judgment, the other party may appeal to the UN Security Council. However, the effectiveness of this mechanism is questionable, as powerful countries with veto power can block resolutions, as seen in the 1984 case of Nicaragua vs the United States. In another case on its docket, Russia has ignored the court’s 2022 order to halt its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

There is another method. Balkees Jarrah, associate international justice director at Human Rights Watch, told AP that the ICJ’s decision offers a potential avenue for relief, but only if governments use their leverage, including arms embargoes and targeted sanctions, to pressure Israel into compliance.

This, too, seems unlikely as the US, Israel’s strongest ally, is equivocal about implementing an arms embargo.

Increasing international pressure

Still, the decision will amplify the mounting international pressure on Israel. Criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza has intensified, especially after the offensive shifted its focus to Rafah. This week alone, three European countries—Ireland, Spain, and Norway—announced their recognition of a Palestinian state, signalling a shift in international attitudes towards the conflict.

Additionally, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court has requested arrest warrants for Israeli leaders and Hamas officials. These developments indicate a growing consensus among international actors that the situation in Gaza requires urgent intervention.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces increasing domestic and international pressure to end the war. Thousands of Israelis have joined weekly demonstrations, urging the government to negotiate the release of hostages and bring an end to the conflict.

While the ruling underscores the severity of the situation and adds to the international pressure on Israel, its practical impact remains uncertain due to the ICJ’s lack of enforcement power. Israel’s rejection of the charges and continued military actions show that the effectiveness of this ruling ultimately depends on the willingness of the global community to use its influence and leverage to ensure compliance and bring an end to the violence in Gaza.

With inputs from agencies