Comment by dragonwriter
1 year ago
> What's the ICJ's actual ability to enforce this?
Zero, the same as most courts.
Enforcement is a matter for (ordinarily) the Security Council, or, in the case of deadlock, potentially the GA acting under Uniting for Peace. Well, decisions on enforcement; actual enforcement is left to individual UN members, acting on direction of those UN bodies.
Note that enforcement in practice is often a problem, as with the provisional measures adopted against Russia in the Ukraine v. Russia genocide case.
> Zero, the same as most courts
Well, Israel is a treaty signatory. That means an ICJ ruling is executable under Israeli law.
That means jack shit right now. But every action taken hereonforth, by leadership or command or individual soldiers, carries with it the burden of future prosecution.
Am I to understand then that a member of the UN could decide that intervene? Or would they need to be “allowed” to intervene on behalf of the ICJ?
> Am I to understand then that a member of the UN could decide that intervene?
Unilateral intervention against genocide is possible and arguably legal even without an ICJ ruling, but ordinarily the preferred method would be sanction from the UN via a Security Council resolution, or by a General Assembly resolution from an emergency special session called to address a Security Council deadlock.