Legal experts: The International Justice Decision paves the way for the trial of Israeli leaders

An international law expert told Al Jazeera Net, “The court clearly found that Israel is violating the Genocide Convention” (Al Jazeera)

Washington -

A number of international law experts who Al Jazeera Net spoke to unanimously agreed on the importance of the International Court of Justice’s decision in the lawsuit filed by South Africa against Israel, accusing it of committing the crime of genocide against the Palestinian people, because of its many and varied repercussions.

The experts pointed out that, based on the ruling of the International Court of Justice, it is possible to work to hold the Israeli officials complicit in these crimes accountable, and to work to stop supplying Israel with weapons and financial and economic aid, and to work to expel Israel from international organizations.

The overwhelming majority

Professor Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, confirmed in his interview with Al Jazeera Net that “the court’s decision is a huge and overwhelming legal victory for South Africa against Israel, in order to push it to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the Palestinians,” based on his experience as an advisor to Bosnia and Herzegovina against the president. Former Serbian Slobodan Milosevic, on trial for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. 

Professor Boyle pointed out that “the ruling of the Court of Justice, which includes judges from various corners of the world, by an overwhelming majority, of 15 votes to two, and 16 votes to one, confirms that South Africa’s lawsuit against Israel has clear justifications, otherwise this matter would not have been possible.” To go down like this."

Political commentator and international affairs expert Asal Rad said, “Although the International Court of Justice’s ruling did not amount to a call for an immediate ceasefire, it was a victory for South Africa’s case by refusing to dismiss the case, as Israel wanted, and by proving the reasonableness of the acts of genocide it committed.” .

“The fact that the rulings of the 17-judge panel were close to unanimous support supports the validity of South Africa’s position, and the six urgent interim measures decided by the court demonstrate the urgent need for Israel to take action to prevent acts of genocide, and to publicly hold officials complicit in these crimes accountable,” Rudd added.

The expert stated, "Given its history of impunity, the court's decision is historic for prosecuting Israel for genocide. However, given the lack of enforcement mechanisms, Israel is likely to continue its attack until action is taken by third countries to hold Israel accountable."

International law expert at New York University, Professor Robert Hawes, also pointed out in an interview with Al Jazeera Net, “The International Court of Justice’s ruling is excellent, both in terms of its legality and legitimacy, and from the point of view of legitimacy, the court’s order against Israel was partially supported by 16 judges out of 17 (including The Israeli judge Barak, in the rest of the articles, was supported by 15 judges out of 17, and the support of the American judge is very remarkable!”

Measures against Israel

Heidi Matthews, a professor of international law at York University Law School in Canada, who previously worked with the International Court of Justice in the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and worked on the prosecutor’s team at the Special Court for Lebanon, believes that “the court’s ruling is historic, even though it was fabricated by the United States and others.” However, it is merely a repetition of the demands of Hamas and Israel to act in accordance with international humanitarian law.”

She confirmed in her interview with Al Jazeera Net, "The most important thing that can be concluded from the temporary measures order is that the court found that South Africa had presented an argument that the allegations of genocide in Gaza were at least plausible, and this effectively puts all countries on notice that there is - at least - "There is a serious danger that Israel is participating or will participate in acts of genocide with the specific and clear intention of completely or partially eliminating the Palestinian people in Gaza."

The professor stated, "The court's decisions create a positive international legal obligation for all states to take measures within their authority to prevent genocide. This may include, for example, stopping arms exports, or providing other types of material assistance to Israel."

International law expert Professor Hawes also asserted that “the Court clearly found that Israel is in violation of the Genocide Convention, and there is an immediate and continuing danger of continued violation, which requires urgent action. The Court widely cited statements of genocidal intent by Israel’s leaders and senior officials, Such as the Minister of Defense, its Prime Minister and its President.”

“The court clearly accepted that the humanitarian situation in Gaza, the forced displacement of almost the entire population, and the risk of widespread famine and disease, were as presented by South Africa, and confirmed by numerous UN reports,” Hawes said. “The court ordered that Israel ensure with immediate effect that actions that risk causing harm are stopped.” grave danger to the people of Gaza, cited by the Genocide Convention.”

The expert stated, “Indeed, the court declared that there must be a cessation of hostilities against the residents of Gaza, but perhaps did not use the word ‘ceasefire’ to allow Israel to respond to specific attacks by Hamas fighters, albeit with a strict commitment to avoid causing harm.” "With civilians."

International law expert at the German Max Planck Institute, Julia Imtseva, considered that, “Although the International Court of Justice refused to grant a temporary measure to Israel to immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza, the matter should still be viewed and encouraged as a victory for South Africa.”

Emtseva added, "The court said that Israel must take all measures in its power to prevent the commission of all acts of genocide that may be committed with genocidal intent. Israel is now required to submit a report within one month, and is likely to do so, as it must defend... itself against the substance of the charge of genocide, when the time comes for the court to consider the merits of the case.”

Influence inside Israel

Professor Emtseva pointed out that “the court’s decision has the potential to change the discourse not only in the international arena, but also within Israel, and those Israeli jurists and politicians who disagree about how their country conducts the war against Hamas are likely to gain more support and legitimacy in the process.” Local departments.

She added, "The political and social implications of such orders are often much broader than the legal implications. For example, arms companies will be subject to more serious scrutiny regarding compliance with international and national laws prohibiting complicity in genocide, and the same applies to states making military aid decisions." ".

Professor Craig Martin at Washburn College of Law at Kansas State University also shared the very common opinion among international law jurists, which is that the International Court of Justice’s decision on provisional measures was extremely important. In an interview with Al Jazeera Net, the professor indicated that “the decision is likely to have some impact.” On discourse and decision-making within Israel, as well as among its allies, the decision is also very important for the rule of international law.”

He commented, “The Court followed well-established precedent and legal reasoning to reach a decision consistent with its findings in Gambia v. Myanmar and Ukraine v. Russia, among others, but had it done otherwise, in clear accordance with political pressures, it would have severely damaged the court’s integrity and sovereignty.” “International law in general, it would have fueled narratives about international law being merely an instrument of power exercised by the Global North at the expense of the Global South, and in that sense, the decision is very important.”

Source: Al Jazeera