Justice behemoth with dwindling heft

How many Palestinians can be killed as collateral damage to eliminate one Hamas terrorist? In 2022, I, along with students from around the world, was confronted with this question in an Israeli classroom while studying international law (IL). While our collective morality shrieked pathetically, this question wasn’t asked for shock value or to insidiously legitimise Israeli oppression. It was one of the many seemingly bizarre questions any nation-state entrenched in an intractable conflict must grapple with—at least to ostensibly stay within the bounds of IL.

Our professor would end lectures thus: “IL is the most imperfect system we’ve got in this world, yet it’s the only one we have.” In that spirit, let us turn to the principal judicial organ of the United Nations—the International Court of Justice (ICJ), located at the Peace Palace in The Hague, which began its official work on April 18, 1946. The ICJ’s role is twofold: to settle legal disputes submitted by states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by the UN or any of its affiliated bodies.

Seventy-nine years since its inception, one could argue that the ICJ has become an ageing acrobat, perpetually walking a tightrope woven from its limited jurisdiction—struggling to balance between its legitimacy and capacity to enforce rulings, all the while drawing a dwindling audience.

An ongoing case in point: South Africa v. Israel at the ICJ, accusing Israel of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention, citing massive civilian casualties, including children, lack of healthcare and looming famine. The ICJ acknowledged many of these charges, and through its ‘provisional measures’ ordered Israel in 2024 to halt its operations in Rafah and resume aid to Gaza. No points for guessing—Israel did not comply. Enforcement lies with the Security Council, where its all-weather ally, the US, almost sits on a pedestal.

However, social scientists might label this view as naïve—perhaps enforcement is not the best metric to scrutinise the ICJ. Some may pontificate that it is about credibility, the moral weight of an ICJ ruling, which can gradually crystallise into protests, social movements, even political action.

It would be preposterous to fantasise about the ICJ as a lone rescuer of biblical proportions, enforcing its decisions and salvaging the lives of the downtrodden. But still, would it be morally justifiable for the ICJ to look Palestinians in the eye and say: “The best I could do was deliver a judgment (and not enforce it)”?

The ICJ needs to rally support—nation-states, other international courts, civil society. People must start pointing their fingers and shouting: a genocide is happening — until we all lose our voices or until the deaf oppressors finally hear. Then again, maybe it is all utopian jumbo-mumbo. Maybe, IL is the most imperfect system the world has, yet it is the only one we have.

Features