The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that Israel must halt its assault on Rafah, but enforcing the ruling may prove difficult due to several challenges. Firstly, the court does not have its own enforcement powers and relies on the U.N. Security Council for enforcement. However, the U.S. veto power on the Security Council poses a significant obstacle in this regard.
Secondly, while there is a credible case of genocide in the current situation, the court’s focus remains on other serious war crimes and crimes against humanity. Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, has highlighted this issue by pointing out that South Africa used genocide as a jurisdictional hook to bring a case before the ICJ. While there is a credible case of genocide in Gaza, the court’s ruling on the situation is preliminary with a low threshold of proof.
Thirdly, World Court president Nawaf Salam mentioned that the conditions in Gaza have worsened since the last order for Israel to take steps to improve the situation. The offensive was sparked by Hamas-led militants entering southern Israeli communities, resulting in numerous deaths and hostage situations. The offensive led to a high number of casualties among Palestinians.
While it is unlikely that the U.N. Security Council will enforce the ICJ ruling without facing opposition from the United States due to its historic support of Israel, there are still ways to achieve compliance with the ruling. These include diplomatic efforts and pressure from international organizations and governments who support human rights and international law.
In conclusion, enforcing an ICJ ruling ordering Israel to halt its assault on Rafah may be challenging due to several factors such as lack of enforcement powers, opposition from powerful countries like the United States, and worsening conditions in Gaza. However, with diplomatic efforts and pressure from international organizations and governments who support human rights and international law, compliance with
