The International Court of Justice issued a preliminary ruling and emergency measures against Israel in the lawsuit filed by South Africa accusing Israel of violating the United Nations Genocide Convention.
The provision includes: taking all measures to prevent any acts that could be considered genocide, ensuring that the Israeli army does not carry out any acts of genocide, preventing and punishing any statements or public comments that could incite the commission of genocide in Gaza, taking all measures to ensure humanitarian access, not eliminating From any evidence that could be used in the case brought against her, she must submit a report to the court within one month on the extent of her application of these measures and provisions.
The court, which is the largest judicial body in the United Nations, decides on disputes between member states of the international organization and its decisions are binding, but the court does not have a mechanism to enforce the implementation of those decisions.
The court, which is headquartered in The Hague in the Netherlands, decides in accordance with the provisions of international law legal disputes that arise between countries.
It also provides advisory opinions on legal matters that may be referred to it by United Nations organs and specialized agencies.
Since 1946, the Court has issued 141 rulings in international disputes – we review a number of them here.
What are the most prominent decisions and rulings taken by the court?
- Netherlands and Canada lawsuit against Syria at the International Court of Justice, 2023:
On June 12, the International Court of Justice announced that the Netherlands and Canada had filed a joint case against the Syrian Arab Republic, alleging violations of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by the authorities in Damascus.
On November 16, 2023, the International Court of Justice issued a decision requiring Syria to take all effective measures to “prevent destruction and ensure the preservation of any evidence relating to allegations relating to acts falling within the scope of the Convention against Torture, Other Ill-treatment or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment.” “.
- Request by the Islamic Republic of Iran to release frozen financial assets, 2023:
In June 2016, the Islamic Republic of Iran filed a case against the United States of America before the court, demanding that Washington release funds it had frozen worth about two billion dollars.
In March 2023, the International Court of Justice ruled that it lacked jurisdiction in the case of Iran’s assets frozen in the United States.
- Iran’s lawsuit against Washington due to sanctions, 2018:
In late August 2018, Iran filed a lawsuit in court alleging that the United States violated the 1955 Treaty of Friendship, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the two countries due to sanctions imposed by Washington on Iran.
On October 3 of the same year, the court issued a decision stating that “US sanctions should not affect the humanitarian situation in Iran nor civil aviation,” a ruling that Washington expressed its refusal to abide by.
- Unilateral Declaration of Independence of Kosovo, 2010:
On October 8, the General Assembly asked the court to express its non-binding opinion on the legality of Kosovo’s declaration of independence, after the withdrawal of Serbian forces from it in 1999.
On July 22, 2010, the International Court of Justice submitted an advisory opinion that Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia in February 2008 did not constitute a violation of international law, after 10 judges voted in favor of the decision and four opposed it.
- The separation wall in the occupied Palestinian territories, 2004:
In December 2003, the General Assembly asked the Court of Justice to issue its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of the separation wall that Israel was building at the time in the occupied Palestinian territories, in accordance with the principles of international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.
On July 9, 2004, the court decided that “the wall is in violation of international law,” and demanded that Israel remove it from all Palestinian territories, while compensating those affected by the construction of the wall. It also called on countries around the world not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall.
She called on the General Assembly and the Security Council to consider any further measures to end the illegal status of the wall.
- Moving the headquarters of the World Health Organization from the Egyptian governorate of Alexandria, 1980:
In May 1980, the World Health Assembly, the highest decision-making body in the World Health Organization, submitted a request for the court’s advisory opinion on the possible transfer of the WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean Region from the Egyptian Alexandria Governorate.
On July 15 of the same year, the Court expressed its advisory opinion that if the headquarters of the Regional Office were to be transferred to another country, the World Health Organization and Egypt “undertook a mutual obligation to consult together in good faith on the terms and modalities of the transfer and to negotiate the various arrangements necessary to carry out the transfer.” “With minimal harm to the organization’s work and Egypt’s interests.”
- Western Sahara issue, 1975:
On December 13, 1974, the General Assembly requested the Court’s advisory opinion on “Was Western Sahara at the time of Spanish colonialism a territory that no one owned,” and also asked about “the legal ties between the territory, the Kingdom of Morocco, and the Mauritanian entity.”
On October 16, the court shared its opinion, saying that “the materials and information submitted to it showed the existence of legal ties” during the Spanish colonial period, between the Sultan of Morocco and some of the tribes that lived in the Western Sahara region, as well as legal ties between “the Mauritanian entity.”
However, its final opinion concluded that these materials and information “did not establish any link of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity.”
Shortly thereafter, the court issued a decision granting the right to self-determination to the residents of Western Sahara – something that was rejected by the then Moroccan monarch, King Hassan II bin Mohammed. Morocco considers Western Sahara an integral part of its national territory.
The post first appeared on www.bbc.com