International law: A gun without bullets

In the aftermath of the Second World War, the international community rallied around a singular, powerful pledge: "Never Again." This solemn vow was meant to ensure that the horrors of genocide and crimes against humanity would never be repeated. It was in this spirit that institutions like the United Nations, and later the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), were established. 

These bodies were designed to be the guardians of global justice, peace and human rights. Yet, as Israel continues to shed Palestinian blood en masse, many are left wondering: has the world forgotten its promise? 

As of October 2024, despite the UN's calls for restraint and humanitarian efforts following the 7 October Hamas attack last year, its limited influence and the lack of a substantial resolution highlight the constraints of its current structure in addressing the broader conflict.

The ICC, born from the Rome Statute in 2002, was created with the express purpose of prosecuting individuals for international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. 

The ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the UN, was meant to settle legal disputes between states and provide advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorised UN organs and specialised agencies.

In the case of Palestine, the ICC has struggled to assert its authority effectively. Despite opening a formal investigation into alleged war crimes in Palestinian territories in 2021, progress has been painfully slow. The court has faced numerous obstacles, including questions about its jurisdiction and lack of cooperation from key parties. 

Israel, not being a member of the ICC, has refused to recognise its authority, further complicating the court's efforts to investigate and prosecute potential crimes.

The ICJ, while having issued advisory opinions on matters related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has seen its rulings largely ignored. In 2004, the court declared Israel's separation barrier in the West Bank illegal under international law. Yet, two decades later, the barrier still stands, a stark reminder of the gap between legal rulings and their implementation on the ground.

In January this year, the ICJ heard South Africa and Israel at its court. Consequently, on 26 January, the court issued a ruling on South Africa's genocide case against Israel over Gaza. 

It ordered six provisional measures, including for Israel to take all measures to prevent genocidal acts, prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to genocide, and take immediate and effective steps to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza.

However, it did not call for a ceasefire. As the months passed, Israel's actions became stark reminders that they are above international courts and law, and able to enjoy impunity.

South Africa went to court again. On 17 February, the ICJ rejected South Africa's request for new constraints aimed at preventing an Israeli incursion in Rafah – a southern city in the Gaza Strip where Palestinians were repeatedly told to go by Israel for safety. 

The following day, Israel's government unanimously approved a resolution rejecting unilateral international recognition of a Palestinian state. Meanwhile, PM Netanyahu vowed to invade Rafah "no matter what" — which occurred in May this year. 

At the same time, the United Nations has been unable to effect meaningful change. The UN Security Council, theoretically the most powerful body for maintaining international peace, has been repeatedly hamstrung by the veto power of its permanent members, particularly the United States, in matters relating to Israel and Palestine.

The UN Chief has voiced his concerns for the Palestinians since the initial days. So much so that on October 2 this year, the Israeli Foreign Minister banned United Nations Secretary-General (UNSG) António Guterres from entering the country, accusing him of "backing" Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran.

The international community faces a moment of reckoning. The world must grapple with a difficult question: If "Never Again" does not apply universally, does it mean anything at all? This they are compelled to do against the backdrop of an unprecedented global civic movement in solidarity with Palestine.