The UN’s highest court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), ruled last week on Israel’s military offensive in Rafah.
It was the court’s latest ruling in a case brought by South Africa, accusing Israel of genocide in the Gaza Strip. Israel has strongly denied the accusation.
Since the case began, the court has issued a series of contested rulings.
The two main questions question whether or not the court has suggested that there is a risk of genocide in Gaza. The second ruling – delivered on May 24 – contains fiercely controversial language about the military operations in Rafah.
It is now being intensively researched and discussed.
In last week’s ruling, the court ruled by a vote of 13 to two that Israel must: “Immediately halt its military offensive and any other action in Rafah Governorate that could impose living conditions on the Palestinian group in Gaza that would lead to its physical destruction, in whole or in part.”
Headlines suggested this was an order to halt all military operations in Rafah, but some judges disagree on what this means.
Five of the fifteen published their own views. Three had supported the order and two had opposed it.
Judge Bogdan Aurescu of Romania said he had voted in favor of the order, but revealed that he felt the court was “unclear” and underlined that it could not prohibit Israel from taking legitimate action in self-defense.
Judge Dire Tladi of South Africa disagreed with Aurescu, even though they had voted for the same order. He said it had ordered Israel “in explicit terms” to halt its offensive in Rafah.
The two judges who opposed the order stated that whatever the others had voted for, it was certainly not a demand for Israel to initiate a unilateral ceasefire in Rafah.
Uganda’s Julia Sebutinde said the court could not micro-manage a war and Israel’s Aharon Barak, temporarily assigned to the case, said the International Court of Justice order was “qualified” as long as the country adhered to the Genocide Convention.
German judge Georg Nolte’s summary is the most revealing about where the court is located.
The order, which he voted for, prohibited military action “to the extent that it could endanger the rights of the Palestinian people” to be protected from the risk of genocide. But he stressed: “The court can only play a limited role in resolving the situation. It must be careful not to overstep the boundaries of what it can and should do.”
