4 ms·

The ICJ is powerless. How does it purpose to enforce it, or anything?

tsimionescu 2y ago
First of all, the mere existence of this ruling should be a guiding star for discourse on the topic. It's unacceptable for so much discourse to claim that there Israel is "just defending itself" when there are actual independent legal experts, with no hidden motives, pouring over the details and concluding that they are slaughtering civilians. So even if no enforcement of any kind happened, it would still be worth it to get an informed and unbiased opinion like this out there. Second of all, countries which are currently helping Israel in its slaughter have internal laws that can be invoked, through their court systems if need be, that should take this ICJ opinion into consideration when evaluating if the government should instead prohibit arms and other aid to Israel in this matter. So there is at least some glimmer of a chance for actual pressure from this ruling. It will take some time to materialize, of course.
- immibis 2y ago
  They will simply claim everyone involved is a Hamas operative, there is no genocide in Ba Sing Se, and they are still just defending themselves. I also remind you that the USA has a law on the books authorizing the invasion of any country which attempts to enforce any international court order which the USA disagrees with.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    I was under the impression that that was just the ICC, as a) USA is not a member of the Rome Statute, b) the ICC prosecutes individuals, not state actors, and c) USA has a really extreme policy of protecting their citizens—even guilty those guilty of crimes—from foreign jurisdictions. The ICJ on the other hand is just a tribunal which orders and advises states and international organizations.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    I believe that law is slightly more limited - they reserve the right to invade anyone who attempts to prosecute US citizens and particularly US military in international courts. I don't think it extends this type of protection to allies. At least the infamous "Hague Invasion Act" doesn't.
    - gizmo686 2y ago
      Section 2008 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ206/html/PLAW-107publ206.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ206/html/PLA... > (a) Authority.--The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court. > (b) Persons Authorized To Be Freed.--The authority of subsection (a) shall extend to the following persons: > (1) Covered United States persons. > (2) Covered allied persons. > (3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government.
      - tsimionescu 2y ago
        Wow, I didn't know it extended that much. Insane to think they then have the gall to claim they are an actor for a rules-based world order...
        immibis 2y ago
        They are. The rules are: heads I win, tails you lose.
      - goldfishgold 2y ago
        What does covered mean here? Who is covered?
        gizmo686 2y ago
dragonwriter 2y ago
> The ICJ is powerless. How does it purpose to enforce it, or anything? It's not its job to do that, it is a judicial not an executive body. Unfortunately, the UN’s executive decisionmaking body is, unlike the court, fairly consistently faithless to the law where any of the pet interests of the P5 members whoe exercise vetos over it are concerned, and protecting Israel from any consequences from its lawbreaking (even where the US fully acknowledges that it is lawbreaking, as in the case of continued settlement expansion) is a pet interest of the US.
- markus_zhang 2y ago
  The UN is simply a playground for the P5 IMO.
  - none_to_remain 2y ago
    And that's a good thing. They have a permanent forum for discussions to prevent global thermonuclear war. Everything else about the UN pales in comparison
michael1999 2y ago
The ICJ can issue warrants for individuals, and the many signatories are then obliged to arrest those people should they travel. Even Kissinger had to take care where he changed planes.
- belter 2y ago
  > The ICJ can issue warrants for individuals, and the many signatories are then obliged to arrest those people should they travel. South Africa who has been allowed to instrumentalize the court, because it is politically convenient. A few months ago, South Africa was leaving the ICC... "South Africa moves to quit ICC over Putin arrest warrant — then backs down" - https://www.politico.eu/article/south-africa-cyril-ramaphosa-international-criminal-court-vladimir-putin-arrest-warrant/ https://www.politico.eu/article/south-africa-cyril-ramaphosa...
- sillywalk 2y ago
  I think you're confusing the ICJ with the ICC. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) settles legal disputes between UN member States, and it's rulings are expected to be upheld and enforced by UN States, or ultimately the UN Security Council. The International Criminal Court is the one that can issue arrest warrants against individuals.

First of all, the mere existence of this ruling should be a guiding star for discourse on the topic. It's unacceptable for so much discourse to claim that there Israel is "just defending itself" when there are actual independent legal experts, with no hidden motives, pouring over the details and concluding that they are slaughtering civilians. So even if no enforcement of any kind happened, it would still be worth it to get an informed and unbiased opinion like this out there. Second of all, countries which are currently helping Israel in its slaughter have internal laws that can be invoked, through their court systems if need be, that should take this ICJ opinion into consideration when evaluating if the government should instead prohibit arms and other aid to Israel in this matter. So there is at least some glimmer of a chance for actual pressure from this ruling. It will take some time to materialize, of course.

immibis 2y ago
They will simply claim everyone involved is a Hamas operative, there is no genocide in Ba Sing Se, and they are still just defending themselves. I also remind you that the USA has a law on the books authorizing the invasion of any country which attempts to enforce any international court order which the USA disagrees with.
- runarberg 2y ago
  I was under the impression that that was just the ICC, as a) USA is not a member of the Rome Statute, b) the ICC prosecutes individuals, not state actors, and c) USA has a really extreme policy of protecting their citizens—even guilty those guilty of crimes—from foreign jurisdictions. The ICJ on the other hand is just a tribunal which orders and advises states and international organizations.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  I believe that law is slightly more limited - they reserve the right to invade anyone who attempts to prosecute US citizens and particularly US military in international courts. I don't think it extends this type of protection to allies. At least the infamous "Hague Invasion Act" doesn't.
  - gizmo686 2y ago
    Section 2008 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ206/html/PLAW-107publ206.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ206/html/PLA... > (a) Authority.--The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court. > (b) Persons Authorized To Be Freed.--The authority of subsection (a) shall extend to the following persons: > (1) Covered United States persons. > (2) Covered allied persons. > (3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      Wow, I didn't know it extended that much. Insane to think they then have the gall to claim they are an actor for a rules-based world order...
      - immibis 2y ago
        They are. The rules are: heads I win, tails you lose.
    - goldfishgold 2y ago
      What does covered mean here? Who is covered?
      - gizmo686 2y ago

dragonwriter 2y ago

> The ICJ is powerless. How does it purpose to enforce it, or anything? It's not its job to do that, it is a judicial not an executive body. Unfortunately, the UN’s executive decisionmaking body is, unlike the court, fairly consistently faithless to the law where any of the pet interests of the P5 members whoe exercise vetos over it are concerned, and protecting Israel from any consequences from its lawbreaking (even where the US fully acknowledges that it is lawbreaking, as in the case of continued settlement expansion) is a pet interest of the US.

markus_zhang 2y ago
The UN is simply a playground for the P5 IMO.
- none_to_remain 2y ago
  And that's a good thing. They have a permanent forum for discussions to prevent global thermonuclear war. Everything else about the UN pales in comparison

michael1999 2y ago

The ICJ can issue warrants for individuals, and the many signatories are then obliged to arrest those people should they travel. Even Kissinger had to take care where he changed planes.

belter 2y ago
> The ICJ can issue warrants for individuals, and the many signatories are then obliged to arrest those people should they travel. South Africa who has been allowed to instrumentalize the court, because it is politically convenient. A few months ago, South Africa was leaving the ICC... "South Africa moves to quit ICC over Putin arrest warrant — then backs down" - https://www.politico.eu/article/south-africa-cyril-ramaphosa-international-criminal-court-vladimir-putin-arrest-warrant/ https://www.politico.eu/article/south-africa-cyril-ramaphosa...
sillywalk 2y ago
I think you're confusing the ICJ with the ICC. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) settles legal disputes between UN member States, and it's rulings are expected to be upheld and enforced by UN States, or ultimately the UN Security Council. The International Criminal Court is the one that can issue arrest warrants against individuals.