Has West lost its appetite for a rules-based order?

On February 27, or a few days earlier, Israel will hopefully submit its response report to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) interim order of January 26, 2024. The final decision in the South African plaint, now supported by other countries, is in the distant future. Soon, the registrar of the ICJ will call in South African and Israeli lawyers to outline the time frame for filing papers on the merits of the case. South Africa has hoped that it would take no more than six months for both sides to file papers. This would just be the first step in a very long process.

The ICJ decision on interim measures was carefully crafted. It is as political as it is legal. Pointedly, it did not call for an immediate ceasefire. All countries that are party to the genocide convention, including India, have to ensure that these interim measures are implemented. The United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), the European Union (EU), Germany and many other European States are doing are doing everything but that. The continuance of armament shipments and economic bailouts to a beleaguered Israeli economy is evidently not furthering their legal obligations to prevent genocide.

The suspension of assistance to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is indicative of the sheer effrontery of the western bloc. Their failure so far to implement the ICJ’s interim measures is a body blow to the credibility and trust in the international legal order. Israel with its continued military operations seeks to degrade all that is necessary for life in Gaza to such an extent that will present a fait accompli on the continued presence of Palestinians in Gaza.

Article 94 of the UN Charter provides that judgments of the ICJ are binding on parties to the dispute and that, if they are not implemented, recourse can be had from the UN Security Council, which may make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment. Clearly, this is not going to happen.

If the US, the UK, not to forget the French, veto the enforcement through the Security Council, the General Assembly (GA) has the option of convening under the Uniting for Peace, resolution 377, passed by the GA to bypass the Soviet Union’s veto during the Korean War. The GA could recommend that member States impose arms and trade embargoes on Israel and organise a military force to intervene in Gaza. The GA could also suspend Israel from its ranks. These decisions would require a vote of two-thirds of the 193 member states of the GA, which is presently in the realm of possibility.

In the meanwhile, the South African international relations and cooperation minister Naledi Pandor on January 31 threw a challenge to the international community. She said, “I believe South Africa has done what it can, and now the global community must answer the question: Do these conventions mean anything? Or do we now have a world in which there is an open licence where you can act as you will against any vulnerable group?” It must be recalled that South Africa has also referred the situation in Palestine to the International Criminal Court (ICC) as “urgent”. South Africa was joined by several other States in referring the situation in Palestine to the ICC. Pandor revealed that while she was in The Hague for the ICJ case, she had met the ICC president Piotr Hofmański and prosecutor Karim Khan “to alert them of our concern about the slow pace of action on matters we referred to them as urgent”. She didn’t think the ICC prosecutor had answered her question sufficiently on “why he was able to issue an arrest warrant for Mr Putin and was unable to do so for the prime minister of Israel”.

A page from history can serve as a ready reminder. The League of Nations, the forerunner of the UN, was founded in January 1920. In 1936, Mussolini’s 500,000 Italian soldiers occupied Ethiopia, a member of the League of Nations. On December 11, 1937, Mussolini slammed the door on the League’s face. For the war years, international law did not prevail. With the outbreak of World War II and the defeat of the German-Japanese alliance with Italy, the maps of the world changed.

Presently, there is a confident China, a dogged Russia and a majority of the GA members not conducive to western perceptions about the future of Palestine. The scales are tilting against the West as the inaction of the ICC calls into question the applicability of the international rules-based order.

The UN secretary general, a sensitive soul, is not able to speak to the Israeli prime minister! Despite the excellent work of the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Mechanisms on Human Rights with Israel, it is a dialogue of the deaf. Is it that the consensual UN has outlived its usefulness for the western bloc?

Ravi Nair is director, South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre. The views expressed are personal

Courtesy: HT