What comes next, now that the ­International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court, has handed down its near-unanimous ruling that South Africa presented a “plausible” case that Israel was violating the Genocide Convention?

The Jan. 26 provisional ruling — which was a landmark victory for the Palestinian people and indeed for international law itself — now goes to the United ­Nations Security Council for enforcement. It is within the Security Council’s purview to order economic or trade sanctions, arms embargoes, travel bans, or even military force to thwart Israel.

But in the likely event that the United States vetoes ­enforcement measures from the Security Council, the UN General Assembly can still act independently in materially-significant ways.

The ICJ’s final decision in this case could take several years. Given the urgency of the mass death and humanitarian crisis currently unfolding, the Court has in the meantime ordered six “provisional measures” to protect the Palestinians in Gaza from genocidal acts while it finishes considering the merits of the case.

In its ruling, the Court said it is “acutely aware of the extent of the human tragedy that is unfolding in the region and is deeply concerned about the continuing loss of life and human suffering.” It described the civilian population in Gaza as “extremely vulnerable,” noting “tens of thousands of deaths and injuries and the destruction of homes, schools, medical facilities and other vital infrastructure, as well as displacement on a massive scale.” The Court added that the “operation is ongoing” and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had stated it “will take many more long months.” 

“At present, many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have no access to the most basic foodstuffs, potable water, electricity, essential medicines or heating,” the Court noted.

The ICJ ordered Israel not to commit genocidal acts against Palestinians in Gaza immediately, even as the Court continues its slow process of officially considering the merits of the genocide case. It concluded that “the catastrophic humanitarian situation” in Gaza “is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the Court renders its final judgment.” Moreover, it said the Palestinians’ right to be protected against genocidal acts and South Africa’s right (as a party to the Genocide Convention) to ensure Israel’s compliance with the convention could be safeguarded by provisional measures. They are:

• Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all genocidal acts, particularly (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.
  
• Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1 above.
  
• Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide.
  
• Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza.
  
• Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence.
  
• Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within one month from the date of this Order.

The ICJ affirmed that “all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law.” It said it is “gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups” and called for “their immediate and unconditional release.”

Every vote on the provisional measures either came out 15-2 or 16-1, with Israel and at times Uganda voting “No.” 

If the United States vetoes enforcement actions via the Security Council, the General Assembly can convene under Uniting for Peace, a resolution it passed to bypass the ­Soviet Union’s veto during the Korean War (1950–53). The General Assembly can recommend that its member states impose arms and trade embargoes on Israel and organize a military force to intervene in Gaza. It can also suspend Israel from its ranks. These decisions would require a vote of two-thirds of the Assembly’s 193 member states.

“A strong resolution there could call for specific legal, economic, political, diplomatic, consular, organizational and other measures. And individual states and regional orgs should act as well, as a matter of legal duty under the convention and under the Charter,” says Craig Mokhiber, former director of the New York Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights who resigned in 2023 because the UN was not moving to end what he called Israel’s “textbook case of genocide.”

Although the ICJ did not order that Israel “immediately suspend its military operations” in Gaza, as requested by South Africa, the provisional measures it did order effectively require a ceasefire. The Court orders forbid the genocidal killing of Palestinians and mandate that Israel allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, which cannot be accomplished without a ceasefire.

“How do you provide aid and water without a ceasefire? If you read the order, by implication a ceasefire must happen,” South African Foreign Affairs Minister Naledi ­Pandor said in a statement to the press following the ruling.

Former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory Richard Falk said the decision “marks the greatest moment in the history of the [court],” because “it strengthens the claims of international law to be respected by all sovereign states — not just some.”

Not surprisingly, Israel rejected the decision of the World Court. Netanyahu called it “outrageous” and characterized the charges of genocide against Israel as “unfounded.” 

And the same day the ICJ ruled that Israel must allow humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza, Israel charged that 12 staff members of the UN Relief and Works Agency were involved in the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas. UNRWA fired nine of the suspected offenders and is investigating two of them, and one is dead. Nevertheless, the United States and several of its allies (which provide 60% of UNRWA’s funding) immediately suspended funds to the 13,000-employee agency on which nearly all Palestinians in Gaza depend for survival, including food and shelter.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said in a statement, “The abhorrent alleged acts of these staff members must have consequences, but the tens of thousands of men and women who work for UNRWA, many in some of the most dangerous situations for humanitarian workers, should not be penalized. The dire needs of the desperate populations they serve must be met.”

Defunding humanitarian aid to the Palestinians ­under siege in Gaza is one of the ways the United States is accelerating ­Israel’s genocide.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace. A longer version of this article originally appeared at Truthout.org.

The Indypendent is a New York City-based newspaper, website and weekly radio show. All of our work is made possible by readers like you. During this holiday season, please consider making a recurring or one-time donation today or subscribe to our monthly print edition and get every copy sent straight to your home.