South Africa filed a lawsuit with International Justice accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza (Anatolia)

After a long period of waiting that extended since January 11, silence finally descended on the hall of the International Court of Justice in the Peace Palace in The Hague, and the judges entered to announce their decision regarding the file that South Africa filed against Israel on charges of genocide, and the court ordered Israel to take all measures to prevent its army. From incitement or committing acts of genocide against the residents of the Gaza Strip and improving conditions for humanitarian access.

In this context, a number of legal experts praised this decision, which they described as “historic,” criticizing at the same time the International Court of Justice’s failure to address an immediate and explicit cessation of the war.

Triumph of law

American lawyer Francis Boyle - who won two cases before the main judicial body of the United Nations - expressed his happiness at the overwhelming legal victory of the Republic of South Africa on behalf of the Palestinians and all of humanity.

Boyle indicated in his speech to Al Jazeera Net that the world must "stop shedding crocodile tears, and commit to preventing genocide in accordance with Article 1 of the Genocide Convention," adding, "I advise the Arab and Islamic countries to act now, because the door is wide open to join South Africa and practice... More pressure."

For his part, expert in public international law, Pierre-Emmanuel Dupin, considered that yesterday’s decision represents “an acknowledgment by the court that the details of the South African file are reasonable, and that the acts that fall within the definition of genocide under the 1948 Convention are documented and were actually committed against civilians, in addition to the martyrdom of the court judge.” Through official statements by Israeli officials calling for and inciting this act.”

Dupin also praised the judges' "honest" behavior because they took a position contrary to their governments, such as the German judge who supported these temporary measures even though his country's government expressed its rejection of the lawsuit, and the French judge despite the fact that the new French Foreign Minister Stephane Ségournet spoke out last week against South Africa.

In turn, Abdel Majeed Marari, international law expert and director of the Middle East and North Africa department at AFDI International, said that the Court of Justice “puts an end to impunity and affirms the right of the Palestinians to be protected from acts of genocide.”

Marari added in an interview with Al Jazeera Net that this decision "will strengthen our efforts before the International Criminal Court, and we consider that it constitutes a strong legal basis that it can rely on in all its investigations, and would put the Public Prosecutor in a comfortable position to issue arrest warrants against war criminals."

No explicit ceasefire

While legal experts welcomed the court's decision because the temporary measures would allow humanitarian aid to reach the Gaza Strip, some expressed their disappointment because it excluded the directive to order an immediate cessation of the war.

In response, lawyer Nariman Qatina Burgnat explained that the orders issued by the court - which include precautionary measures based on the Genocide Convention - do not contain a systematic procedure ordering the accused state to stop fighting, “just as there is no ceasefire in the terms of the Court of Justice, but rather a cessation of military operations.” "Israeli".

Speaking to Al Jazeera Net, the Palestinian-French lawyer described the court's approach to the case as "smart" because it asked Israel to take all measures to ensure that it does not incite or commit acts of genocide, indicating that it cannot continue waging war as it is doing now.

As for the legal aspect, Nariman believes that today’s decision effectively put Israel in the dock and marked its loss before international law, noting that the governments and countries that supported the occupying state will have to think seriously to avoid being accused of complicity.

For his part, Emmanuel Dupin considered that the court’s request to the Israeli army to refrain from committing acts that meet the definition of genocide was “unfortunate,” because the goal was to go further and to request a complete ceasefire.

An Israeli report a month later

It is noteworthy that the precautionary measures decided by the Court of Justice must enter into force immediately, while the 30-day period relates to the report that Israel must submit to the court.

Commenting on this, Boyle does not believe that this period will make any difference, because “Israel’s report will contain lies, as they lied during the 3 hours of oral arguments they presented, but what concerns us here is the court’s order to prepare the report.”

As for Lawyer Nariman, she believes that the period proposed by the court is “reasonable,” because it was not possible to submit a written report before the Court of Justice within one week, and if Israel does not comply with this order, it will be additional evidence in favor of South Africa, and will feed its argument on the merits of the case.

She pointed out that the report was requested to be sent after 4 months in other cases, "and since this file is still under consideration, Israel is taking a big risk if it does not comply and respect the court order by submitting this report within the specified period."

The temporary measures are emergency measures and care must be taken to implement them as soon as possible, according to Le Pen.

Speaking to Al Jazeera Net, the expert in international law confirmed that, “If we see in the coming days that the Israeli army snipers people carrying the white flag again, this will mean a clear violation of the court’s decision.”

Resorting to the Security Council

Despite the possibility of the United States using its veto power in the Security Council, all these international experts agreed that South Africa’s referral of the file to the Council is a next step if Israel refrains from implementing the court’s decision.

Dupin said, "We will then see if the American representative votes against it and uses his veto power before the entire international community, in clear defiance of a decision issued by the main judicial body of the United Nations."

He added that this applies to European countries that have taken a position of unconditional support for Israel, especially France, which has always praised the role of the International Court in ensuring the peaceful resolution of disputes and the rule of international law.

Lawyer Qatina agrees with this trend by saying that the Security Council may be a possible option, because the Court of Justice does not have the military means to force Israel to implement its decision, “and in this case, Israel’s failure to respect the Council’s decision will make it an outlaw state.”

She explained, "We are facing two different issues. There is international law proven by the Court of Justice, then there is the desire of the member states of the United Nations - especially the Security Council - to impose this by force, and above all there are possibilities of imposing sanctions against Israel and its leaders as well, or submitting complaints to the national courts." .

In the context of non-implementation of a decision issued by the International Court of Justice, the Security Council can take measures within the framework of Chapter VII and Article 41 of the United Nations Charter, including imposing economic sanctions.

As for lawyer Francis Boyle, he believes that stopping the war and genocide in Gaza has become an urgent and urgent matter before the situation gets out of control in the region, especially with Yemen in the Red Sea and the aggressive actions carried out by the Americans in Iraq and Syria in support of Israel, as he put it.

Source: Al Jazeera