Comment by thsksbd
1 year ago
The ICJ punted.
The ruling is a joke, how can you rule against the defendant and yet order the defendant to monitor themselves?
The ICJ knew if it found against Israel it would loose all credibility outside the West, but it also had too much political pressure from the West to rule for Israel.
> The ICJ punted.
No, it didn't. It ruled on what amounts to (in the parlance of the US legal system) a preliminary injunction, ordering one because the pleadings and supporting evidence on initial review warrant it, while the process of a trial on the merits will take longer.
> The ruling is a joke, how can you rule against the defendant and yet order the defendant to monitor themselves?
The only people the ICJ can order are the parties. External monitoring and enforcement is a matter for, primarily, the UN Security Council.
> The ICJ knew if it found against Israel it would loose all credibility outside the West, but it also had too much political pressure from the West to rule for Israel.
The process by which the ICJ might rule for or against Israel, rather than ordering provisional measures, is much longer. This is just an early part of the case.
The ICJ could, however, order a ceasefire that is a freezing of the conflict.
This process will take years that the Palestinians do not have.
> The ICJ could, however, order a ceasefire that is a freezing of the conflict.
It could, as it did against Russia in Ukraine v. Russia (2022). But note that in Ukraine v. Russia it specifically cited the resolution adopted by the General Assembly under Uniting for Peace addressing the Russia invasion as a violation of the UN Charter as a violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another UN member, that is, it was addressing an operation already declared illegal independent of the issue before the Court.
Ordering a halt to an operation that otherwise might fall within the recognized UN Charter right if individual or collective self-defense is, especially when the allegedly aggressing party is not subject to the order, seems pretty hard to justify as a provisional measure.
(One might also note the absence of an effect of that order in Ukraine v. Russia.)
2 replies →
> ICJ punted
Yes. But this isn’t the final ruling.
South Africa asked for something analogous to a preliminary injunction. The ICJ declined to order a preliminary ceasefire. Instead, the case will be tried as usual.
Which will take years that the Palestinians do not have
> take years that the Palestinians do not have
Sure. I don’t think the ICJ was envisioned as an incapacitating body. Instead its existence is a deterrent. A venue for retribution and possibly even restitution.