The UN Security Council recently adopted a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza (Anatolia)
As the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip approaches its sixth month, a wide range of changes have emerged on the international scene regarding how to deal with this brutal aggression, which has so far led to the fall of about 33,000 martyrs, most of whom are women and children.
Israel continues its determination to complete its war on the Gaza Strip, and threatens a large-scale military operation in the southern city of Rafah, which contains more than 1.25 million displaced people from the northern Strip.
On the other hand, international opposition to initiating the process is growing, which poses great challenges to the decision-maker in Israel, because what was previously permissible is no longer so now, and what was without diplomatic or political costs at the beginning of the war can no longer be continued.
While the issue of invading Rafah is still subject to the margins of negotiations, the Israeli hesitation in continuing the operation there cannot be attributed to technical and logistical reasons alone, without taking into account the escalation of international warnings regarding the potential consequences of continuing the war or invading the city of Rafah, given what it could cause. It has catastrophic repercussions on civilians.
Security Council Resolution No. 2728, issued on March 25, 2024, was the most prominent sign of the international shift towards intensifying pressure on Israel, due to the war on Gaza.
This was evident in Washington’s abstention from voting, which allowed the passage of the resolution demanding “an immediate ceasefire during the month of Ramadan, respected by all parties leading to a permanent and sustainable ceasefire,” as well as “the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian aid to civilians and enhance their protection in the Gaza Strip.” entire Gaza,” while requesting that the parties comply with their obligations under international law with respect to all detainees.
Although the Security Council resolution did not include any binding language, it is clear that the pressure on Israel has become more intense, after its allies engaged in attempts to push for a ceasefire, which made it face the risk of shaking its international relations.
International responsibility towards the war in Gaza
Since the end of World War II, the international community has sought to establish a set of rules that aim not only to ensure that the tragedy of war is not repeated, but also to establish a system based on respect for international rules that guarantee international stability and peace, stop violations, and ensure accountability for illegal acts.
Despite the importance of the recent Security Council resolution, it was not the only thing calling on the international community to intensify its pressure on the Israeli occupying state to stop its aggression against Gaza, and before that to end its widespread violations in the Palestinian territories, including the continued occupation.
The responsibility of states to put an end to Israeli violations in the Palestinian territories, especially the Gaza Strip, clearly stems from a set of obligations that include a pledge or duty on states to respect its application and prevent violations of its provisions, which include:
1- Security Council resolutions
The recent Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza during the month of Ramadan sparked a state of debate regarding the extent to which the Council’s decisions are binding, especially after statements by American officials indicating that the resolution related to Gaza is not binding, although it must be respected.
Under Article 25 of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council has the authority to issue resolutions that are binding on member states of the United Nations. However, the past decades have witnessed controversy regarding the formula that makes the resolution binding and not a recommendation, a controversy that has extended to dozens of resolutions issued by the Security Council, including The famous Resolution 242 regarding withdrawal from the occupied territories in 1967.
While there was consensus that the texts of Council resolutions taken under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter are binding, over the past two decades the Council has used clearer phrases to express the bindingness of the resolution, including indicating the existence of a threat to international peace or a breach thereof, or The occurrence of an act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, which falls within the provisions of Chapter Seven, in addition to the paragraphs of the resolution including the phrase “decides”, and therefore there is a difference between the phrase “urges/demands the Security Council” and “the Security Council decides.” .
An example of this is Security Council Resolution 478 issued in 1980, in response to Israel’s enactment of the “Unified Jerusalem Law.” The Council clearly decided that all measures and actions taken by Israel that aim to change the character of the city of Jerusalem are invalid. It also called on member states not to accept The law and the withdrawal of its diplomatic missions from the city, as this decision is considered one of the most important decisions issued by the Security Council regarding the status of the occupied city of Jerusalem.
Another example relates to the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006, when the Security Council issued Resolution No. 1701, which called for stopping the war and deploying UNIFIL forces, and then withdrawing Hezbollah forces from the area between the Blue Line and the Litani River.
While the resolution included several paragraphs that began with the word “decides,” the preamble also indicated that the situation in Lebanon represents a threat to international peace and security, which falls within the provisions of Article 39 within Chapter Seven of the Charter, even if this chapter was not explicitly referred to after the government’s refusal. Lebanese that. While all parties adhered to the resolution, it still represents a reference for demands and calls to stop the current escalation between Hezbollah and Israel.
2- Genocide Convention
January of this year was a turning point in highlighting Israel's growing international isolation and consolidating the conviction that its violations against Palestinian civilians had reached an unprecedented extent and could not be tolerated.
Israel has been in the dock before the International Court of Justice for the first time since its establishment, under penalty of violating its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Under Article 1 of the Convention, signatory states have a clear responsibility to prevent and stop the crime of genocide.
South Africa based its claim against Israel on Article 9 of the Convention, which allows the International Court of Justice to consider any dispute arising between the parties to the Convention regarding the interpretation of the Treaty or the scope of its application, including responsibility for the crime of genocide.
As for Article Eight of the same treaty, it gives the parties the possibility to summon the competent bodies of the United Nations to take the necessary measures to prevent and stop acts of genocide, in accordance with the provisions of the agreement.
The International Court of Justice referred to a number of clarifications regarding the role of states parties to the Convention in preventing crime, and in its decision in the case of Bosnia against Serbia. The court found that even if the competent bodies of the United Nations were called in accordance with Article Eight, this does not exempt States Parties from taking all measures within their power to prevent the occurrence of genocide, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and any decisions issued by the competent bodies of the United Nations.
In this regard, the Court referred to the principle of “due diligence”, from which it can be concluded that States parties are obligated to prevent the crime of genocide.
The Court considered that the obligation and the corresponding duty to act “arise at the moment when the State knows, or ordinarily should have known, that there is a serious risk of genocide being committed.”
In the case filed by Ukraine against Russia in 2022 regarding violation of the Genocide Convention, the Court noted that the Convention did not specify the measures that Contracting Parties may take to fulfill their obligations to prevent crime, but that it remains the duty of the parties to implement this obligation in good faith, taking into account the provisions of the Convention in particular. Related to resorting to the International Court of Justice or the competent bodies of the United Nations.
3- The Geneva Conventions of 1949
Dozens of international resolutions issued by various United Nations bodies indicated the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.
The first common article in the four agreements stipulates that “the High Parties undertake to respect this agreement and to ensure its respect in all circumstances.”
In its comment on the aforementioned article, the International Committee of the Red Cross referred to the “external dimension” related to ensuring respect for agreements, which not only requires the parties to the conflict to abide by the agreements, but also requires third countries (non-parties), whether neutral, allies or enemies, to do so. Everything in its power, however reasonable, to ensure that agreements are respected by the parties to the conflict.
Thus, it does not justify those parties to threaten or even use force in contravention of the United Nations Charter, but rather imposes obligations on them, including refraining from transferring weapons if it is believed that they will be used in violation of the agreement, or not recognizing the situation resulting from violation of the agreements, as is being interpreted Article 1 stipulates that states parties to the Convention are entitled to use all appropriate measures within reasonable limits to ensure that the parties to the conflict respect the agreements.
4- Countermeasures and stopping Israeli violations
Over the past decades, the international community has become acquainted with what is known as “countermeasures,” which generally means measures taken by states in the face of illegal behavior by other states. These measures include, for example, suspending diplomatic relations, halting arms sales, or cutting off trade relations, among others. .
During the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982, and the grave violations it entailed against civilians there, international condemnation of Israel had reached extreme levels, prompting the United Nations General Assembly in several successive sessions to issue resolutions, including, for example, 123/37 and 180/38, These resolutions carried an unprecedented condemnation of Israel, and explicit calls to take measures against it, due to its refusal to abide by international resolutions.
The resolutions included calling on member states of the United Nations to sever diplomatic, cultural and commercial relations with Israel, in addition to cutting off economic and financial assistance. These resolutions also called for the cessation of military cooperation with Israel.
In addition, these resolutions declared that Israel is a non-peace-loving state and does not abide by the provisions of the United Nations Charter (which are the conditions for the state’s admission to membership in the United Nations).
In the first weeks of the aggression on the Gaza Strip, several countries withdrew their ambassadors from Tel Aviv or cut diplomatic relations with it completely.
Later, international behavior began to escalate against Israel, even by its allies, especially after South Africa filed its claim regarding Israel’s violation of the Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide, as several countries, including Canada, Spain, Belgium, and others, announced a ban on supplying weapons to Israel against the backdrop of the war in Gaza.
5- International pressure to stop the war
After the October 7 attacks, Israel gained broad legitimacy at the international level, enabling it to carry out the largest genocide of Palestinians since the Nakba.
The countries allied with Israel used to support the military aggression against the Gaza Strip in the beginning, and emphasized “Israel’s right to defend itself,” but the unprecedented rise in the number of casualties and within a record period of time led to an escalation of voices denouncing the war around the world, especially in the West.
While Israel expresses its rejection of the demands for a ceasefire in Gaza, the recent Security Council resolution may lead to an escalation in the international movement aimed at pressuring Israel through “countermeasures” that may undermine diplomatic and military relations between the capitals of the world and Tel Aviv, and thus affect The course and intensity of the war.
Source: Al Jazeera