JANUARY 27 — The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has delivered interim rulings in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel.

The ICJ, however, refuses South Africa’s request for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. This despite ICJ President Joan Donoghue citing senior UN officials’ statements on Gaza such as Martin Griffiths who said “Gaza has become a place of death and despair”.

The Peace Palace building of the International Court of Justice a few hours before the ICJ delivers its Order in the case South Africa v Israel, where Israel is accused of commiting Genocide in the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian People. Night view of the illuminated building of the Peace Palace, it houses the International Court of Justice, which is the principal judicial body of the United Nations, the Permanent Court of Arbitration PCA, The Hague Academy of International Law and the Peace Palace Library. — Reuters pic
The Peace Palace building of the International Court of Justice a few hours before the ICJ delivers its Order in the case South Africa v Israel, where Israel is accused of commiting Genocide in the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian People. Night view of the illuminated building of the Peace Palace, it houses the International Court of Justice, which is the principal judicial body of the United Nations, the Permanent Court of Arbitration PCA, The Hague Academy of International Law and the Peace Palace Library. — Reuters pic

President Donoghue says the rulings create international legal obligations for Israel. In other words, the ICJ’s rulings are binding.

But the ICJ has no enforcement powers. Respect to, and enforcement of, judicial decisions is a key element of the rule of law which is premised on the idea that all must obey the law.

Will Israel comply with the rulings? Charles Santiago doubts it.

If Israel fails to comply, South Africa may bring the matter before the UN Security Council, which is empowered to recommend or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the rulings.

But – another but – each of the five permanent members can veto any effort at enforcement.

In The Republic of Nicaragua v The United States of America (1986), the ICJ delivered a judgment against the US and Nicaragua asked the Security Council to enforce the judgment as early as possible. Put to the vote, the US, a permanent Member of the Council, vetoed the draft resolution.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.