The importance of the decision of ICJ related to Israeli occupation 

Last week, the International Court of Justice( ICJ) made an announcement. According to the statement Israel has no right to occupy Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. ICJ rules the presence of Israel in these regions is illicit. 

This ruling was an advisory opinion. It was based on the queries from the United Nation General Assembly in 2022. Israel didn’t join the court proceedings and only sent a written objection, arguing that the ICJ shouldn’t review their actions without their consent, even if the review was advisory.

Now the question is whether this decision of ICJ changes the impact of the decisions about Israel’s occupation. Furthermore, there is also one more case where South Africa blammed Israel of commiting genocide in Gaza. This case also makes the situation more complex. 

From the perspective of Israel, these two cases are quite similar. In the first one, the  ICJ is looking at legal problems with 57 years of occupation. While in the other case South Africa wants that court should take part in order to stop the violence that began October 2023. 

Israel also argues that this ruling ICJ puts its security at risk. It is also against the strategy “ right to defend itself.” This clearly highlights that Israel ignores the ICJ decision and never stops its cruel action in Gaza. Also Israel has stuck to its old approach to occupation since 1967. 

No any law will prevent us

Israel is clear in its views. Recently the prime minister gave a statement in his office. According to him, “ Israel does not recognize the legitimacy of the discussion at the International Court of Justice in The Hague regarding the ‘legality of the occupation’—a move designed to harm Israel’s right to defend itself against existential threats.” Or in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cruder language, “No one will stop us.

At first glance it looks like the difference between “advisory” and “binding decisions is not crucial. But after a closer look it is observed that the  alignment is more a result of the ICJ’s evolving legal interpretations than Israel’s objections and refusal to follow the rulings.

There are about 9 conclusions about the statement made by ICJ re;ated to Israel occupation of Gaza. And none opposed by more than four of the fifteen judges. 

Nowadays the political landscape is full of tensions. At this time, the announcement made by judges reflects that the court’s decision should be taken seriously. 

It shows that Israel’s actions as an occupying power should be judged based on international humanitarian law, especially the Fourth Geneva Convention, and international human rights law, particularly the treaty against racial discrimination.

There is no difference between the advisory and obligatory rulings. It also blurs the lines between non-binding and binding decisions. This similarity is more about the ICJ’s evolving legal standards than Israel’s objections and refusal to comply. There are nine key points that came from the decision of the International Court of Justice. And few official personalities do not agree with it. 

It also expresses that that court decision on Israel occupation is especially concerning the human rights law and Fourth Geneva Convention. Many judges from the Global South, the United State and Australia agreed on this decision. Despite the fact that the governments of these nations support Israel strongly.  

Different nations stand in favor of the decision of the International Court of Justice. Because they put law above national identity. However, this focus on law is not in the United Nation political bodies. For the Security Council the thing that matters a lot is the national interest. Also it is crucial to note that permanent members (P5) have authority of veto power. For this they keep the geopolitics priorities intact. As the Turkish president stated, “The world is greater than five.” The ICJ’s rulings, though called “advisory,” are firm and widely supported by judges, directing Israel, all states, and the U.N. to follow its decisions and end Israel’s prolonged, illegal presence.