Today, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will consider South Africa’s allegations against Israel, accusing the country of violating the Genocide Convention in Gaza. This hearing is a crucial step, providing an opportunity to present compelling evidence of Israel’s purported genocidal campaign.
The evidence of intent and execution is glaring in Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza, challenging the apartheid regime and its supporters to confront the atrocities they have sought to conceal and justify. Despite our two decades of experience at CAGE International in various courts, our expectation of justice is tempered, given the historical trend of judges succumbing to political pressure in cases involving severe abuses of power.
Instances of judges resisting political pressure are scarce, particularly in cases linked to the “War on Terror” narrative, where courts have often overlooked protections enshrined in domestic and international law. T
he ICJ’s decision on whether Israel is committing genocide is unlikely for several years; the current hearing focuses on determining whether an interim order should be issued for Israel to cease its offensive and withdraw from Gaza. However, even if such an order were made, the ICJ lacks effective means of enforcement without a UN Security Council resolution.
The US, acting as Israel’s political shield, has historically vetoed Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, displaying a pattern likely to persist. Similar to Russia’s response to the ICJ ruling on its invasion of Ukraine, the US has refused to comply with ICJ judgments against it in cases brought by Nicaragua (1986) and Iran (2018).
The failure of the UN Security Council to intervene effectively has contributed to the erosion of the so-called “rules-based international order.” Acts of genocide and war crimes in Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and against the Uyghurs in China have gone unchecked. Rather than preventing genocide, the Security Council itself endorsed genocidal sanctions on Iraq, resulting in the deaths of approximately half a million children.
International institutions have also fallen short in holding key political figures accountable for their roles in invasions. The International Criminal Court (ICC), in particular, has faced criticism for its perceived bias, exemplified by its failure to issue a warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrest while pursuing similar action against Vladimir Putin.
Supporters of Palestinian liberation should not rely on the ICJ’s verdict to deliver justice, as the escalating death toll underscores a global failure to hold perpetrators accountable. Instead, the outcome may contribute to isolating the Israeli state in the court of public opinion, fostering a broader discussion on the nature of Zionism, and affirming Palestinians’ right to resist aggression. If international law cannot protect Palestinians from genocide, their inalienable right to self-defense becomes a necessary option.
CAGE International calls for a re-evaluation of current international institutions, emphasizing the need for transparency, accountability, and impartiality in bodies created to promote both international peace and justice. Achieving the former is contingent on ensuring the latter.