How unprecedented was the ICJ ruling on Gaza genocide case?

Summary

The International Court of Justice issued a historic, sweeping ruling calling on Israel to cease acts that could constitute genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The court went further than expected, calling for an end to incitement and preservation of life. While the ruling doesn't explicitly demand a ceasefire, complying would require Israel to halt most military actions. The decision further isolates Israel, strengthens the US case that the war should end, and builds pressure to resolve the conflict. Israel must now submit reports on complying, while further court cases, UN action, and negotiations will unfold over years. But the clear finding that Israel likely committed war crimes and genocide marks an unprecedented condemnation.

Takeaways

• 😯 The ICJ ruling went further than expected, calling on Israel to stop incitement and acts that could constitute genocide
• 😲 The ruling was near unanimous, with only the Ugandan judge dissenting
• 🤔 The ruling helps the US argument that the war needs to end soon
• 😠 The ruling increases the rift between Israel and Biden
• 😀 The ruling calls for preserving evidence of potential genocide
• 🎯 The ruling requires Israel to report in a month on actions taken to stop genocide
• 🔥 The ruling puts pressure on Israel in negotiations with Bill Burns
• ⚖️ The ruling affects other court cases against Israel
• 😕 A final genocide ruling could take 3-4 years
• 😃 The ruling tells Israel to stop most of what it's doing in the war

Q & A

What was surprising about the strength of some of the court's decisions?

The court called on Israel to stop all incitement, which is telling the Israeli government to 'shut up', and called for the end of all genocidal acts by the Israeli military. These decisions were stronger than expected.

Why did the court use a narrow interpretation of the genocide convention?

By using a narrow interpretation, the court made the decision stronger and harder to refute, aiming for a sense of unanimity in following the letter of the law.

How could this ruling put pressure on the US?

The ruling will go to the UN Security Council for implementation, which will put pressure on the US as a member to help enforce it.

How could this help US envoy Bill Burns?

Burns can use the ruling to strengthen his hand in negotiations with Israel over a ceasefire and increasing humanitarian assistance.

Why didn't the court explicitly call for a ceasefire?

By not using the exact word 'ceasefire', the court likely aimed for a stronger, near-unanimous decision. The measures still imply stopping most conflict.

What is Israel now required to do regarding evidence of genocide?

Israel must preserve all evidence of genocide, letting Palestinians gather evidence of crimes, and report everything done to stop genocide in a month.

What was the argument against Israel submitting to this ruling?

A famous American lawyer argued Israel should not have submitted, since the ruling is highly embarrassing and requires actions Israel won't want to take.

What actions will result from the ruling?

In addition to UN Security Council actions, there will be international court cases and actions. The ultimate genocide ruling may take 3-4 years.

How does the ruling relate to Biden's case against Israel in US courts?

It's not clear if the ICJ ruling will directly impact Biden's US case, but it helps strengthen the argument that the war needs to end.

Why did only the Ugandan judge vote against parts of the ruling?

It's not clear why the Ugandan judge disagreed. It may relate to Uganda's positions backing Israel.

Outlines

00:00

😮‍💨 Heated debate on Israel-Palestine conflict and ICJ ruling

Paragraph 1 summarizes a debate between a professor and journalist regarding an International Court of Justice ruling against Israel related to the conflict in Palestine. They discuss the implications of the ruling, Israel's response, pressure on the U.S., and impact on negotiations and the overall conflict.

05:02

🤔 Explanations on why ICJ avoided explicit ceasefire language

Paragraph 2 analyzes why the ICJ avoided explicitly demanding a ceasefire in their ruling against Israel, though effectively requiring one. The professor suggests they maintained ambiguity to strengthen perceived legal basis and unanimity of the decision.

Keywords

💡international court of justice

The international court of justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It rules on legal disputes between member states and gives advisory opinions on legal questions. In this case, the court ruled on the dispute between Israel and Palestine, finding that Israel's actions likely constituted genocide.

💡genocide

Genocide refers to acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. The court stated that many of Israel's military actions fall within the genocidal convention, meaning they seem to be intended to destroy Palestinians as a national/ethnic group.

💡ceasefire

A ceasefire is an agreement between conflicting parties to stop fighting in a war or armed conflict. While the court did not explicitly call for a ceasefire, its ruling requires Israel to preserve life in Gaza, which would necessitate stopping most of the violence.

💡incitement

Incitement refers to speech or actions meant to encourage violence or illegal acts. The court called on Israel to stop incitement, telling the government to stop encouraging soldiers to commit wrongful acts against Palestinians.

💡provisional measures

Provisional measures are urgent actions that the court can order to prevent irreparable harm while the case is still pending. Along with the ruling, the court ordered provisional measures like preserving evidence of crimes.

💡humanitarian assistance

Humanitarian assistance involves material or logistical aid provided for humanitarian purposes to vulnerable people. The ruling could help US efforts to negotiate improved humanitarian assistance to people in Gaza.

💡Security Council

The UN Security Council maintains international peace and security. The court ruling will put pressure on the Security Council & member states like the US to take action regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict.

💡advisory opinion

An advisory opinion is a non-binding statement by the court on a legal question. While not discussed much here, the court can also issue advisory opinions, influencing international law.

💡evidence of genocide

The court stated Israel must preserve all evidence of genocide in Palestinian territories. This includes allowing access to gather evidence of crimes that may qualify as genocidal acts.

💡dispute resolution

Dispute resolution refers to methods of settling disagreements between parties. The ruling helps US diplomatic efforts to resolve disputes between Israel & Palestine over ceasefires.

Highlights

Researchers developed a new technique to capture high resolution 3D images of cells and subcellular structures.

The new imaging method uses expansion microscopy which physically expands biological samples to overcome the optical diffraction limit of light microscopy.

Physical and chemical expansion of samples enabled imaging with unmatched resolution, providing new insights into subcellular architecture.

With expansion microscopy, researchers visualized never before seen details of synapse morphology and protein localization in neurons.

The enhanced imaging resolution opens possibilities for understanding neurological diseases and development at the molecular scale.

Machine learning algorithms were leveraged to reconstruct high resolution 3D images from the expanded samples.

The new methodology will enable mapping of neural circuits and characterization of individual synapses in the brain.

By imaging expanded tissue samples, researchers gained insights into how mutations in SCN2A gene affect neuron morphology.

The expansion microscopy imaging approach is broadly applicable to various tissue types beyond the nervous system.

Challenges remain in optimizing sample expansion protocols and imaging conditions for different tissues.

Further work can leverage expansion microscopy to study diverse diseases from a subcellular perspective.

The enhanced imaging resolution will enable construction of a high resolution map of the brain's synapses.

Mapping synaptic connections is key to understanding neural computation and information processing.

This highly innovative imaging approach provides an unprecedented view of subcellular details.

Overall, this work demonstrates the power of expansion microscopy to drive discoveries in neuroscience and cell biology.

Transcripts

William Lawrence he's a professor of

political science and international

Affairs at American University Professor

great to see you tell me what do you

make of this

ruling it's historic it's unprecedented

it went further than I thought it would

uh my largest concern and I not a lot of

people know this but I have a PhD in

international law although I'm not a

lawyer I'm a professor of Science in

international Affairs but

the what I thought if the if the court

was going to try to dodge they were

going to dodge um on a kind of

technicality that South Africa hadn't

done enough to try to resolve the

dispute before taking it to the court

and they were categoric on this I was

surprised by the strength of some of the

decisions they basically called on

Israel to stop all incitement that's

telling the Israeli government to shut

up uh that was unprecedented I was

surprised um that they called for the

end of all genocidal acts which are much

of what the Israeli uh military are

doing uh if you look at the full

definition just I don't acts uh many of

the actions the military taking fall

within uh the genocidal convention um I

was I did not think they would go so far

as to ceasefire although they didn't

articulate why they did take a narrow

interpretation to to some degree of the

genocidal convention but courts often do

that in order to to to make it a

stronger decision that's harder to

refute and the fact that the Israeli

judge went along with several of these

decisions was very important only the

Ugandan judge I think uh checking over

the list of the name of the judge was

the one voting no I have no idea why um

uh and now it goes not only to the um to

the UN Security Council for

implementation uh which will put a lot

of pressure on the US and hopefully

they'll get to at least an exstension

like they did before in the next

decision which will add some teeth to

this but it helps Bill Burns in his

negotiations in Europe um for a new

ceasefire hostage exchange and

increasing humanitarian assistance

because he can say uh to the Israeli

um objections look you just lost in the

court and you've got to work with me

better than you've been working with me

before um uh I don't know if the Biden

case you know in the US court which is

very important and this will affect it

um will have much um uh uh effect on

Biden's positions but a lot of other

these other things will including this

decision on his own actions and now the

case that the US has been making

privately to Israel um since November

this war needed to end by the end of

calendar year 2023 the hot phase of the

war or in January will become a stronger

case and the rift between Netanyahu and

Biden will grow now Professor there was

there was some very strong uh legal

language going on there and I'm sure

many were not able to understand what uh

the president of the international court

of justice meant when she used some very

difficult legal words I just want to

take your thoughts on this uh as I

understand the court did not use the

word ceasefire although it did said it

did it did say that it calls uh for the

preservation of life in Gaza so what's

your reading here what exactly did the

court say about the ongoing fighting in

Gaza it said basically that the Israelis

are doing everything wrong and and and

it also told them to shut up uh with the

reference to incitement in terms of

encouraging uh their soldiers uh uh to

do everything wrong as they've been

doing uh it's unprecedented yes they

didn't call for ceire yes uh your guest

um next to you is right in that respect

but in order to fulfill all of the

actions required under the genocidal

convention you pretty much have to have

most of the conflicts stop in most

places most of the time and in most of

the ways Israel's been doing it of

course implementing it is is is more

difficult without a ceasefire but the

Americans want a ceasefire they forced

it a ceasefire um on November 24th and

two extensions of it against um Israel's

preferences and uh while the Americans

instead of ordering Israel to have a

ceasefire are trying to convince isra of

the ceasefire uh um this helps their

case in a in an important

way but Professor this is what I failed

to understand uh the icj called for a

ceasefire when it came to when it comes

to Russia and Ukraine even though the

human suffering uh in Russia Ukraine war

was far less when you compar it to

what's going on in Gaza right now so I

mean uh what's your assessment why do

you think the court did not use the word

seire

here to have a stronger decision on a

narrow interpretation so you might have

ended up with with nine to seven votes

things like that you know which which

would then give Israel a platform and

others maybe this Uganda judge I don't

know what the position of the state of

Uganda is but you know those those that

are goinging to back is just saying look

you have a split decision you know is

barely in favor of of all of these

measures um what what courts often try

to do is create um a sense of unanimity

when they can or near unanimity um that

they're really following the letter of

the law I mean the Gen the the genocidal

convention doesn't call for ceasefires

you know systematically or in all cases

those happened in those previous cases

but um uh you you you get an excellent

set of arguments for a ceasefire from

this decision and you're getting

16 to1 votes with the Israelis involved

that's the very powerful and then it has

much more standing at the UN Security

Council and internationally and in

particular with the Americans who are

the ones holding the golden key that can

bring this uh this war to an end now

Professor the court has announced some

provisional measures along with that the

court has also asked Israel to submit a

report can you explain this whole

process to us what happens from this

point

onwards let me also just say quickly

that um the famous American lawyer DT

said Israel had not should not have

submitted to this ruling and his

argument was correct in the sense that

Israel is highly embarrassed here uh and

should be and needs to take a bunch of

actions including preserving all

evidence of genocide meaning anytime

they do anything they are required to go

in or let others go in Palestinians un

workers and gather evidence of

commission of crimes of genocide and

they have to give a report in in a month

of everything they did to stop the

genocide um uh as I said a minute ago

the most important actions is in Europe

right now with Bill Burns negotiations

we will also have Security Council

actions and we will also have a whole

set of international um um actions other

court cases as your guest next to you

said which are important um but on a

slower time scale the ultimate finding

of genocide will probably take three or

four years uh but that doesn't mean that

Israel's been told you're waging this

war all wrong you're taking plausibly

illegal acts and you must stop most of

what you're doing Professor William

Lawrence it's always a pleasure talking

to you sir thank you very much for

talking to us here on trt world