2024-01-26 19:38:49
Hot Q&A｜What is the impact of the International Court of Justice’s judgment on Israel’s alleged genocide case?
Xinhua News Agency, The Hague, January 26 Hot Q&A｜What is the impact of the International Court of Justice’s judgment on Israel’s alleged genocide case?
Xinhua News Agency reporter Wang Xiangjiang
The United Nations International Court of Justice issued binding “provisional measures” in The Hague, Netherlands, on the 26th, requiring Israel to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and prevent genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. How did the International Court of Justice make this decision? What impact will it have? How have all parties reacted to this?
Judgment
The judgment read by Joan Donoghue, President of the International Court of Justice, on the 26th stated that the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip faces serious risks of further deterioration, and Israel must abide by its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and take all measures Possible measures to prevent genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
The verdict stated that Israel must ensure that its military does not commit any act of genocide and must take all possible measures to prevent and punish any act of committing or inciting to commit genocide. In addition, Israel must take immediate and effective measures to provide urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
The judgment said that Israel must submit a report to the International Court of Justice within a month describing the specific measures it has taken to implement the International Court of Justice’s judgment.
how to make
On December 29 last year, South Africa filed a lawsuit with the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of violating the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. It also urged the International Court of Justice to take measures to prevent Palestinians from violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. rights enjoyed were further compromised. Subsequently, the International Court of Justice held a hearing on the lawsuit.
The lawsuit filed by South Africa to the International Court of Justice mainly includes two major demands. The first is for the International Court of Justice to issue several “provisional measures”, the first of which requires Israel to immediately cease military operations in the Gaza Strip. The second is for the International Court of Justice to issue a ruling on Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip. Charges of genocide were heard and verdicts were issued.
Israel responded by emphasizing that Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip were an act of self-defense, denying South Africa’s accusation of genocide, rejecting the International Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over this issue, and asking the International Court of Justice to dismiss South Africa’s lawsuit.
Faced with the different claims of South Africa and Israel, the International Court of Justice actually made a “compromise” in its judgment. On the one hand, the International Court of Justice did not agree to Israel’s request to dismiss the case, but concluded that it had jurisdiction and ultimately decided to issue “provisional measures.” On the other hand, the International Court of Justice did not fully meet all the demands made by South Africa. For example, in the “provisional measures” it issued, it did not explicitly require Israel to immediately cease military operations in the Gaza Strip. This was South Africa’s first request to the International Court of Justice. A “temporary measure” is also one of the items of greatest concern to the international community.
Regarding the genocide charge against Israel, Donoghue said that conclusive evidence is needed to make a verdict on this charge, and the International Court of Justice needs time for further proceedings, so it cannot yet make a verdict. Based on the ICJ’s past handling of similar lawsuits, final judgments often take years.
What is the impact
According to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, decisions issued by the International Court of Justice by issuing “provisional measures” are legally binding and cannot be appealed. Although it is the legal obligation of the relevant country to enforce the judgment, the International Court of Justice is not given the ability to enforce the judgment. If the relevant country refuses to enforce the judgment, the International Court of Justice has no way to force it to execute.
Despite this, the judgment of the International Court of Justice still has immeasurable political, diplomatic and international moral influence. For Israel, although the International Court of Justice has no coercive means, its refusal to implement will not only expose it to further legal risks, but also face tremendous pressure from the international community.
A Dutch legal expert said the verdict puts countries that support Israel such as the Netherlands and the United States in a “difficult position” and that Israel’s allies must seriously consider how to respond. If Israel’s allies do not want to be complicit in the alleged genocide, they may put more pressure on Israel behind the scenes to make Israel realize that its actions in the Gaza Strip violate international law. In addition, this verdict will also increase pressure within Israel on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Reactions from all parties
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa delivered a nationally televised speech on the afternoon of the 26th, saying that the ICJ’s ruling was “a victory for international law, human rights and justice.” The South African government welcomed this decision. The “provisional measures” issued by the International Court of Justice are binding on Israel, and South Africa expects Israel to implement the International Court of Justice’s ruling.
The European Commission issued a statement on the 26th saying that the EU reiterated its continued support for the International Court of Justice, the main judicial organ of the United Nations. The judgment of the International Court of Justice is binding on both parties and must be abided by by both parties. The EU looks forward to the full, immediate and effective implementation of the judgment.
Palestinian Foreign Minister Nouri al-Maliki delivered a video speech welcoming the “provisional measures” issued by the International Court of Justice. He said the ICJ judges assessed the facts and the law and their ruling was in favor of humanity and international law. This is a binding legal obligation and Palestine calls on all countries, including Israel, to ensure the implementation of all “provisional measures” issued by the International Court of Justice.
The Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) issued a statement that day, saying that the ICJ’s ruling was “an important development” that would help isolate Israel and expose its “crimes” in the Gaza Strip.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu issued a statement on the 26th to refute the accusation of genocide against Israel, saying that Israeli military operations were against Hamas, not Palestinian civilians, and stated that Israel will continue to fight Hamas until it achieves complete victory. He also said Israel’s commitment to international law is unwavering. Like every state, Israel has an inherent right to self-defense. Attempts to deny Israel this fundamental right are blatant discrimination against the Jewish state. (Participating reporters: Xie Jiang, Liu Weijian, Lu Yingxu, Zhang Tianlang, Fu Yiming)
#Hot #Questions #Answers #impact #International #Court #Justices #judgment #Israels #alleged #genocide #case #Xinhuanet #Client