Rédaction Africa Links 24 with Ottilia Anna Maunganidze
Published on 2024-02-27 10:07:02
Between 19 and 26 February, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) saw a significant sitting where oral arguments were presented by 51 countries and three international organisations regarding the legal consequences of Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territories. This event was historic in nature as it involved a record-breaking number of participants, with 57 written submissions also being considered by the judges. The request for this opinion came from a United Nations General Assembly resolution in December 2022 that received overwhelming support, with 87 votes in favor, 26 against, and 53 abstentions.
Palestine’s legal team, during their presentation on 19 February, drew on their written submissions from July 2023 as well as recent events in Gaza to argue against Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, referring to it as colonization, racist violence, and apartheid. Despite these arguments, on 20 February the UN Security Council failed to pass a resolution for a ceasefire in Gaza, with the US vetoing the measure once again. This marked the fourth time a resolution on the matter has been vetoed, raising questions about the US stance on the Gaza war and the potential impact of an ICJ advisory opinion in favor of Palestine.
The US, in its oral arguments at the ICJ, maintained that the court should not order Israel’s withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian Territories without security guarantees, echoing similar sentiments made two decades ago when the ICJ declared the West Bank wall illegal. The US also argued against imposing a time limit on Israel’s occupation and insisted that security matters should be decided by the Security Council.
Recent comments by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken suggesting that new Israeli settlements in the West Bank violate international law indicate a slight shift away from unconditional support for Israel. However, Israel has rejected the ICJ process as illegitimate and harmful, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterating this stance on 19 February, characterizing the proceedings as an infringement on Israel’s right to self-defense against existential threats.
With the majority of countries siding with Palestine’s views on the occupation, Israel may be feeling the pressure as its support base appears to be diminishing. The Munich Security Conference highlighted a global desire for an end to the conflict, with calls for the release of hostages and prisoners of war and advocacy for a two-state solution. However, Israel’s leadership continued to assert military action in Gaza and rejected the possibility of a two-state solution until Hamas is eradicated from the region.
Of the 63 countries involved in the proceedings, only three (Israel, the US, and Hungary) unequivocally defended the legality of the occupation, while others expressed concerns about the potential destabilizing effects of the ICJ proceedings on negotiations and stability in the region. Despite the varying viewpoints, the overwhelming support for an ICJ advisory opinion to settle the issue demonstrates a shift in international opinion regarding the occupation.
The advisory opinion on the legality of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is expected to be released before July 2024. While the outcome may be symbolic in nature, it sends a clear message that many countries are actively engaged in supporting judicial processes as a means to uphold the rule of law. The ICJ’s decision will be crucial in shaping international law and could have far-reaching implications for the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine.
Read the original article on Daily Maverick
