The ICJ judgment looms: what if the interim ruling on January 26 goes against Israel?

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is poised to deliver a long-awaited ruling on January 26, in response to South Africa’s request for an interim ruling against Israel.

South Africa took the case to court, accusing Israel of “serious violence and genocidal acts” in Gaza and demanding an immediate ceasefire. Israel rejected the accusations, characterizing them as a “partial and deeply flawed picture.”

After hearing arguments on January 11 and 12 in The Hague, the International Court of Justice is now about to give its ruling.

“The ICJ will currently only look at ‘interim protective measures’, which is the equivalent of the term ‘interim orders’ used in Indian courts,” explains Pratik Bakshi, co-founder of the World Law Forum.

Bakshi clarified that these measures are intended to prevent ongoing conflicts or disputes from escalating further. “The International Court of Justice will not decide whether Israel is guilty of genocide, and it may take years before the court reaches a conclusion on this point,” he noted.

Legal experts suggest that if the International Court of Justice issues interim measures against Israel, they will be legally binding and final. However, the road to enforcement can prove challenging.

“Orders of the International Court of Justice, including orders indicating interim measures, are in theory legally binding on the signatory states of the Genocide Convention, i.e. Israel and South Africa. Such orders are final and without appeal,” said Bindi Dave, senior partner. at Wadia Ghandy & Co.

Despite the legal binding, Bakshi emphasized that the ICJ has no real enforcement power. “Israel has the choice to ignore the ICJ ruling and continue its operations in Gaza because the ICJ has no independent enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with its decisions,” reiterated Ankur Mahindro, managing partner at Kred Jure.

In such a scenario, the International Court of Justice may turn to the United Nations Security Council to take appropriate action.

“However, given that the enforcement of sanctions is subject to the veto of each of the five permanent members of the Security Council, a proposed resolution for actual or effective enforcement of provisional measures is susceptible to embroilment in political wrangling, especially given the perceived proximity of the United States to Israel,” Dave added.

Previous decisions by the International Court of Justice in similar cases, such as interim measures against Russia to halt its invasion of Ukraine or to prevent Myanmar’s violence against Rohingyas, have proven ineffective in ameliorating conflict situations.

Nevertheless, experts suggest that Israel may have to tone down the intensity of its attacks due to international pressure if the ruling goes against Israel.

First print: January 25, 2024 | 3:58 PM IST