The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is poised for a significant showdown as it prepares for the first public hearings in South Africa's genocide case against Israel. The case centres around allegations by South Africa that Israel intends to destroy a substantial part of the Palestinian population in Gaza. The hearings will take place at the ICJ's headquarters in the Netherlands.
Israel vehemently denies the accusation, asserting that it is not deliberately targeting civilians in its conflict with Hamas. The Israeli foreign ministry has described South Africa's claim as lacking factual and judicial basis and condemns it as an exploitation of the court.
Determining the allegation of genocide is likely to be a lengthy process, spanning several years. The immediate focus of this week's hearings is on whether provisional measures should be implemented, such as a ceasefire or suspension of hostilities in Gaza, while the ICJ deliberates on the genocide case.
For the court to order provisional measures, it must be convinced that genocide is plausible and that there is a risk of irreparable harm if these measures are not implemented. However, it's important to note that even if the court calls for a pause in combat operations, Israel is not obligated to comply, as the ICJ lacks enforcement powers and relies on political pressure resulting from its rulings.
Nevertheless, experts in international law suggest that any interim judgment could carry significant implications. It could exert political pressure on Israel and its allies, potentially influencing their actions in the conflict.
The public hearings this week are primarily focused on determining whether interim measures should be put in place to halt combat operations in Gaza while the ICJ continues its deliberations on the genocide allegation, a process that may extend for several years. These provisional measures aim to prevent further harm while the court examines the legality of specific actions taken by the parties involved.
Despite the limitations of the UN's ability to enforce a ceasefire, it can apply diplomatic pressure on Israel and its supporters. If the ICJ were to rule in favour of provisional measures, it could prompt the United States and other allies of Israel to call for a reduction in military activities, which would not be perceived as backing down against Hamas but rather as a response to an international court's decision.
Ultimately, regardless of the ICJ's final decision, this case holds importance in upholding international law by subjecting evidence to court scrutiny and potentially shaping the behaviour of nations involved in conflicts under international legal scrutiny.
