Will international law achieve justice for Gaza?

Experts criticize the lack of a mechanism in international law to force Israel to stop its military actions in Gaza (Reuters)

Paris -

The principle of protecting human rights has always been at the core of international concerns during wars and puts international law to a frank and difficult test, as is the case today for the Palestinians who have struggled over the past seven decades to remain on their land.

Under the guise of the right to self-defense, many governments are still providing abundant support to the Israeli occupation to complete the elements of its crime documented in audio and video in the Gaza Strip, despite the number of martyrs exceeding 33,000 and the wounded 75,000, 6 months after the war.

Between blaming countries colluding with Israel and criticizing the Office of the Prosecutor in The Hague, question marks are increasing regarding the absent and weak role of the courts, and the only and most important question currently remains: Will international law achieve justice for Gaza?

Marari says that the international legislator deliberately neglected to establish executive mechanisms to implement the rules of international law (Al Jazeera)

Absence of an executive mechanism

Public international law expert Pierre-Emmanuel Dupin praised South Africa's case against Israel before the International Court of Justice, and regretted the lack of any concrete results following the court's order and even the additional measures granted based on a request submitted by South Africa a few days ago.

Dupin told Al Jazeera Net that international law does not have a mechanism that can effectively force Israel to stop its military actions, explaining that within the framework of the United Nations Charter system, the issue of non-compliance with temporary measures can be referred to the Security Council, but the administration of US President Joe Biden will use its veto power. (Veto).

Director of the Middle East and North Africa Department at AFDI International, Abdel Majeed Marari, believes that international legislators “deliberately neglected” to establish executive mechanisms to implement the rules of international law in cases of armed conflicts, attacks and wars.

He added to Al Jazeera Net, "The violations we are seeing in the Gaza war are mentioned in the rules of international law, but there is no one to ensure their implementation, and this is a defect of the entire international institutions."

In turn, international law expert Gilles Duffer says, “The positive thing is that we obtained two model decisions from the court in less than 3 months, stipulating that the crime of genocide had been committed and the necessity of taking measures to prevent it.”

South Africa submitted its appeal on 29 December, the hearing was held on 11 January, and the court issued its decision on 26 January. Since Israel did not respect it, it is expected that a new request will be submitted to International Justice within the next two weeks.

Experts accuse International Criminal Prosecutor Karim Khan of following a policy of double standards in the war on Gaza (French)

Double standards

While the Prosecutor General of the International Criminal Court, Karim Ahmed Khan, receives criticism and accusations due to his policy based on “double standards” and the way he deals with war crimes committed by Israel, international expert Duffer believes that “Khan’s term lasts 9 years, during which he implements the basic law and then leaves office, unlike the people.” The Palestinian who existed and will continue to exist.

He added, "It is easy to blame the Prosecutor, but we must not overlook the fact that out of the 125 member states of the International Criminal Court, only 7 countries supported our actions: Algeria, Bolivia, Bangladesh, Comoros, Djibouti, Mexico, and Chile."

The legal expert criticized the communications offices that carry out propaganda with the aim of weakening the voice of the International Criminal Court because they "want a world in which only money, weapons and power rule."

He stressed that the court is the only judicial authority in the world that has recognized Palestine as a state and that it has sovereign jurisdiction over the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, so a distinction must be made between the role of the public prosecutor and the court.

For his part, French lawyer Dupin believes that international law has lost its credibility and relies on double standards, especially compared to what happened against Russia in the context of the Ukrainian war, where an arrest warrant was issued against Russian President Vladimir Putin very quickly.

Marari agrees that the blame should be placed on the prosecutor “because if he had had the courage, moral courage, and will to achieve justice, he could have done so, even if he was criticized and paid the price, as happened with his predecessor, Fatou Bensouda, who was banned from entering the United States and placed on the sanctions list.” Issued by the US Department of State.

Regarding the member states of the court that did not support the Palestinian file, Abdel Majeed Marari said that they basically support Israel and help it with weapons, such as France, Germany, and Britain. As for the African countries, most of them do not have the luxury of making decisions.

politicization

While the Public Prosecutor’s Office has all the documents confirming the commission of genocide against the people of Gaza, some countries have begun to change their positions and others are trying to stop their support for Israel, which may lead, in a “decentralized” manner, to taking legal measures against the occupation, according to Duban. .

As for international law expert Duffer, he believes that things are moving forward at the legal level, but politically they are facing a dead end, as the Security Council has not done anything in 6 months, and even when Washington abstained from voting, it said that its decision was indicative and not mandatory.

He continued, "No one can end the atrocities taking place in Gaza because politics is still stuck in the game of the United States and the great powers, and today we only have the courts of justice and the criminal courts, knowing that when the Sabra and Shatila massacre occurred - which was a war crime - we did not have any legal means." to be judged at that time.

He added, "We must understand that at the present time we have a government of extremists running Israel and that its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is betting on war to remain in office. Otherwise, he will have to resign and then go to prison."

In this context, lawyer Marari confirms that the role of the International Criminal Court and the tasks of its prosecutors were politicized in conjunction with countries using the veto card, especially the United States, which was confronting all investigations that did not serve its interests in some regions, such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

After October 7, the International Criminal Court justified its failure regarding the Palestinian file by saying that the financial obstacle prevents the implementation of investigations in the Palestinian territories, and claimed that Israel is not cooperating with it because it is not a member state of the court.

Regarding the issue of lack of funding, Marari confirmed that the court received financial support from Belgium, worth 5 million euros, immediately after the lawsuit filed by the legal team in The Hague on November 9, but it refrained from announcing this, adding that Spain had made a promise to fund the investigation as well. Due to its positions in support of the Palestinian cause.

International law expert Abdul Majeed Marari asks, “Did the court have sufficient funds to investigate the Darfur file and the memorandum it issued against former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, and in Libya as well? Who financed these investigations at the time?”, considering that the answer is the lack of international will when it comes to the matter. In Palestine.

Source: Al Jazeera