The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion on July 19, 2024, with significant consequences for human rights protections in Palestine under Israel’s 57-year occupation. The opinion stems from a December 2022 request by the United Nations General Assembly to the court to consider the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/19768980

archive.org link

In a historic ruling the International Court of Justice has found multiple and serious international law violations by Israel towards Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including, for the first time, finding Israel responsible for apartheid. The court has placed responsibility with all states and the United Nations to end these violations of international law. The ruling should be yet another wake up call for the United States to end its egregious policy of defending Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and prompt a thorough reassessment in other countries as well.

  • kaffiene@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    4 months ago

    It has legitimacy and respect. What it doesn’t have is enforcement. That’s left to individual states

    • FireTower@lemmy.worldEnglish
      37·
      4 months ago

      Seemingly not among the involved party. What punishment can flow for this crime and the court’s finding that wouldn’t be levied otherwise.

      The indica of respect and legitimacy of a court is if their rulings are abided. Convince Israel a court with no Israelis should be the final arbitrator of their nations course of acts.

      • kaffiene@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        4 months ago

        If you’ve shifted your claim to “Israel doesn’t respect the ICJ” then yeah of course, they clearly have no respect for international law but that is a very different claim to what you posted earlier

        • FireTower@lemmy.worldEnglish
          14·
          4 months ago

          For the sake of clarity is my claim is that most nations won’t accept the legitimacy of any ICJ ruling against them as there is no practicable means of holding a nation to account. A judiciary without an executive is an exercise in futility.

          There is no crime without a consequence.

          Any nation at the point of which informed reasonable third parties declare them to have committed war crimes isn’t likely to just slap their knee and say “you know what, my bad” after a ICJ ruling.

          It’s one thing to respect the ICJ when you are a third party. It’s another when you are in the nation subject.

          If the ICJ declared that many European countries violated human rights by not allowing criminals defendants to face their accusors, I doubt many of them would reform their justice system.

          • kaffiene@lemmy.worldEnglish
            51·
            4 months ago

            Ah well again, that’s a different claim. The court is respected but everyone knows they have no enforcement powers. Their strength is entirely diplomatic

            • bartolomeo@suppo.fiEnglish
              4·
              4 months ago

              I think what’s missing here is the existence of legal precedence. The UN had an arms embargo on apartheid South Africa starting in the 70s, so there’s precedent for that.

              Fun fact: Israel violated the South Africa arms embargo. Big time.

              • kaffiene@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                4 months ago

                Clearly, enforcement is the weak part of international law.

                Soooooo surprised to find Israel working against the international community thou :-)