How likely is it for Netanyahu to be tried at the ICJ?

On 24 May 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ordered Israel, in a ruling, to halt its assault on Rafah, a southern area of Gaza near Egypt border. The president of the international court of justice, Nawaf Salam, ordered Israel to “immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” This marks the latest setback for the Jewish nation in a war that continues to grind on with heavy civilian casualties and no end in sight. Although the International Court of Justice lacks the means to enforce its orders, the case starkly highlights Israel's global isolation over its campaign in Gaza. This isolation has become especially pronounced since Israel began its offensive against Rafah this month, despite pleas from its closest ally, the United States. Israelis responded with outrage. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s office on Friday rejected South Africa’s allegations of genocide by Israel, calling them “false and outrageous”. In a joint statement released along with the Israeli foreign ministry, Netanyahu’s office said it would continue to allow aid to enter Gaza "in accordance with the law".

Before the ruling, on 20 May, the chief prosecutor Karim Khan at ICJ announced that he was seeking arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, Mr. Sinwar, Hamas’s leader within Gaza; Muhammad Deif, Hamas’s military leader; and Ismail Haniyeh, the movement’s Qatar-based political leader. Netanyahu called Khan’s move a “disgrace” and accused the prosecution of anti-Semitism, vowing to press ahead with Israel’s war against Hamas militants. Hamas has also denounced the ICC prosecutor’s request to arrest its leaders, saying it “equates the victim with the executioner.” ICC prosecutor Karim A Khan has made applications for the warrants, claiming he has reasonable grounds to believe that the mentioned people bear responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Israel-Gaza war.

The warrant would also put Mr Netanyahu in a category of accused leaders that also includes Russian President Vladmir Putin, and late Colonel Muammar Gaddafi of Libya. Mr Putin faces an arrest warrant for the unlawful deportation and transfer of children from Ukraine to Russia. Before being killed by the protesters, Col Gaddafi’s arrest warrant was for murder and persecution of unarmed civilians. So, Netanyahu felt humiliated. The reaction of Netanyahu was furious. According to him it was a moral outrage of historic proportions. Israeli Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant described the arrest warrants against him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a "disgraceful" attempt to interfere in the war.

US President Joe Biden also did not accept the decision by saying “outrageous”. Israel’s Far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said that those demanding Israel stop the war were also demanding that it cease to exist, which Israel would not agree to. Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid called the order "a moral collapse and a moral disaster" for failing to link the demand to halt fighting to a demand that Hamas free hostages. So the Prime Minister Netanyahu has a moral support to continue his fighting.

The order was handed down a week after South Africa requested it as part of its case accusing Israel of violating the Genocide Convention enacted in the wake of the Holocaust. However, it appears that Prime Minister Netanyahu, or the state of Israel, will continue their offensive against Rafah, where they believe Hamas militants are hiding.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It is commonly referred to as the World Court. Established in 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations, the ICJ began its operations in 1946.

My question is: Does the ICJ play a crucial role in the peaceful resolution of international disputes, despite having no direct means to enforce its judgments? What happened in the 1986 case between the Republic of Nicaragua and the United States of America? In this case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the United States had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Sandinistas and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The Court found that the United States breached its obligations under customary international law by using force against another state, intervening in its affairs, violating its sovereignty, and interrupting peaceful maritime commerce. However, the United States refused to participate in the proceedings, arguing that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. also blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council, preventing Nicaragua from obtaining any compensation.

Israel continues its strikes in Rafah and receives criticism in turn. On the other hand, Hamas refuses to consider any peaceful solution despite innocent civilians being killed. No party is making desperate efforts to secure the release of the innocent hostages taken by Hamas on October 7 last year. So, it is clear that peace will not be achieved through the International Court of Justice; it may just be a fantasy.

Mohshin Habib is an author and journalist