\u201cThat's why the UN general assembly explicitly asked the court for expedited hearings,\u201d says Muller, \u201cas a direct response to the unfolding humanitarian crisis in Gaza.\u201d But in the end, all these different cases, each having their own restrictions and limitations, make up \u201ca kind of puzzle\u201d in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, says Muller. And indeed there was a repetition in evidence presented to the court of the ongoing tragedy, with more recent details on the intensity of the threats to Palestinian women and children and the daily toll of deaths and injuries doctors have witnessed and are unable to treat. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cGaza is now home to the largest cohort of child amputees in the world, the largest orphan crisis in modern history, and a whole generation in danger of suffering from stunting, causing irreparable physical and cognitive impairments; over 15,600 children have been killed violently. Tens of thousands more of Gaza\u2019s children are injured or missing, and many of those surviving are so traumatised that they openly express the wish to die,\u201d Irish lawyer Blinne N\u00ed Ghr\u00e1laigh, previously representing South Africa in the genocide proceedings, told the court on behalf of Palestine. A video from Dr Muhamad Mustafa, an Australian doctor who was volunteering in Gaza last March, was played, in which he said: \u201cThe bombing has been non-stop. We\u2019ve run out of ketamine, we\u2019ve run out of Propofol, we\u2019ve run out of all painkillers. We can\u2019t sedate anyone, we can\u2019t give them any analgesia. When we intubate people, they wake up and they\u2019re choking because we have no sedation. There are seven girls getting their legs amputated, no anesthesia\u2026 It was just mostly women and children, burnt head to toe, limbs missing, heads missing.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Israel\u2019s isolation<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nJuliette McIntyre, a lecturer in law at the University of South Australia, says the court\u2019s role is important because it gets to reaffirm the rules for everyone, including for states which might be tempted to not provide UN access. \u201cIt's like a tug of war. Every time you get a state that disobeys or breaches a norm, the norm is weakened because other states see you getting away with it and they think \u2018oh I could do that too\u2019. When the court comes along and restates the norm, the norm is strengthened.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\t
\r\n\t\tFIND THIS ARTICLE INTERESTING?<\/div>\r\n\t\t\r\n\t\t\tSign up now for our (free) newsletter<\/a> to make sure you don't miss out on other publications of this type. \t\t<\/div>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t\n\n\nSome 40 states and international organizations have affirmed in written and oral submissions to the court that Israel has a legal duty to allow aid into the Gaza Strip and to cooperate with the UN's aid agency for Palestine, UNRWA, which was created in 1949 after the creation of the state of Israel, to support the Palestinian refugees spread in camps across several countries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In October 2024 Israel\u2019s parliament, the Knesset, banned the agency. In its legal submissions to the ICJ Israel says the UN body is a security threat. Many states in their submissions pointed out that allegations about UNRWA\u2019s lack of neutrality and its infiltration by Hamas have been independently investigated and the agency has been absolved while it was implementing reforms. But Jerusalem provided a 37-page written submission to the court, in which UNWRA is referenced 278 times. \u201cUNRWA\u2019s failure to abide by its mandate and to uphold the fundamental principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence, which the UN has long acknowledged are essential to the provision of humanitarian assistance, is as indisputable as it is egregious,\u201d it says. The paper argues that Israel is entitled to end cooperation with the organisation for the sake of its own security.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Israel\u2019s position is that it is following international law. It was backed by submissions from the US and Hungary. \u201cWhat's really interesting about this one,\u201d says McIntyre, \u201cis just how very straightforward the law is and how everyone, except for the US and Hungary, agrees.\u201d Including countries like Russia and China, which is \u201ckind of unusual,\u201d she says. Muller says it shows how isolated Israel\u2019s legal position has become. \u201cIt seems that it's kind of losing the argument,\u201d he says. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Is anything not clear?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThe continued use of the ICJ for both contentious cases and the request for advisory opinions is striking. \u201cMore states are finding their way to the courts and they're making submissions even when you might wonder why they are devoting their resources to this,\u201d says Muller. \u201cIt just shows that they do see the court as a legitimate form, to present their views and to make them known on the international legal stage.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Many of the arguments were about reparations, acknowledged McIntyre. \u201cThe one thing that is most interesting about this case is how not interesting it is, which is that everyone is there to say the same thing. The law on occupation is very clear. The law about immunities is extremely clear. There's really not much in the way of wriggle room here.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So how are judges likely to rule? \u201cIt's obviously always hard to predict,\u201d says Muller. But because of the specific way the question has been formulated \u2013 \u201cWhat are the obligations of Israel, as an occupying Power and as a member of the United Nations, in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, including its agencies and bodies, other international organizations and third States, in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including to ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies essential to the survival of the Palestinian civilian population as well as of basic services and humanitarian and development assistance, for the benefit of the Palestinian civilian population, and in support of the Palestinian people\u2019s right to self-determination?\u201d \u2013, the court could treat it narrowly, by just reaffirming the law. Or, Muller says, \u201cthe context gives the potential to rule on a very broad scope because it even includes a reference to the Palestinian right to self-determination. You can also tell from the way some states have responded to it and the kind of submissions that they've made that some of them also take it very, very broadly, even going into all kinds of remedies.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Three of the ICJ judges asked questions during the week-long hearing specifically about the current Israeli blockade. \u201cIt's possible that in light of the factual background that the court takes one further step and rules a bit more broadly than we might expect,\u201d says Muller. \u201cThe court is aware of the context. It is just answering the question while at the same time being well aware of the politics around it,\u201d says McIntyre. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Meanwhile, Israel has leaked details of a new plan for delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza that would cut UNWRA out completely<\/a>. The proposal, which may be approved at Sunday\u2019s Israeli cabinet meeting, has already been widely rejected by aid agencies<\/a>. Muller speculates that in response, \u201cif Israel manages to come up with another way that also satisfies legal standards, that might have some influence in the sense that it might narrow the scope or it might make the court more inclined to spare Israel in one way or the other in its opinion. I do think that it could play a role because the court tends to be quite pragmatic as well. \u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n
Some 40 states and international organizations have affirmed in written and oral submissions to the court that Israel has a legal duty to allow aid into the Gaza Strip and to cooperate with the UN's aid agency for Palestine, UNRWA, which was created in 1949 after the creation of the state of Israel, to support the Palestinian refugees spread in camps across several countries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In October 2024 Israel\u2019s parliament, the Knesset, banned the agency. In its legal submissions to the ICJ Israel says the UN body is a security threat. Many states in their submissions pointed out that allegations about UNRWA\u2019s lack of neutrality and its infiltration by Hamas have been independently investigated and the agency has been absolved while it was implementing reforms. But Jerusalem provided a 37-page written submission to the court, in which UNWRA is referenced 278 times. \u201cUNRWA\u2019s failure to abide by its mandate and to uphold the fundamental principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence, which the UN has long acknowledged are essential to the provision of humanitarian assistance, is as indisputable as it is egregious,\u201d it says. The paper argues that Israel is entitled to end cooperation with the organisation for the sake of its own security.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Israel\u2019s position is that it is following international law. It was backed by submissions from the US and Hungary. \u201cWhat's really interesting about this one,\u201d says McIntyre, \u201cis just how very straightforward the law is and how everyone, except for the US and Hungary, agrees.\u201d Including countries like Russia and China, which is \u201ckind of unusual,\u201d she says. Muller says it shows how isolated Israel\u2019s legal position has become. \u201cIt seems that it's kind of losing the argument,\u201d he says. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"International](\"https:\/\/www.justiceinfo.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/Israel_family-member-victim-7-october-Hamas_@Gil-Cohen-Magen-AFP-540x360.jpg\")
<\/div><\/a>\r\n\t\t\t