Legal expert Achilleas Emilianides described the decision of the International Court of Justice in The Hague on South Africa’s lawsuit against Israel as significant.
The decision imposes some obligations on Israel but falls short of requesting a ceasefire, which was a key demand of those opposed to Israel and its current policies.
Responding to the Cyprus News Agency’s request for comment on yesterday’s ICJ decision, Mr. Emilianides said, “In essence, the decision includes some of the things South Africa requested but does not include a ceasefire as a temporary measure, which was one of the demands. Therefore, Israel is not currently obligated to ceasefire based on the decision.”
What is extremely important, he noted, is that interim measures were indeed granted, and the ICJ also obliged Israel to provide periodic reports and return to the ICJ to demonstrate how it complied with the measures.
This, he added, “puts serious pressure on Israel, which I don’t believe will cease military activities given that a ceasefire was not granted as a temporary measure.”
Certainly, he added, Israel is obliged to try to limit indiscriminate attacks on civilians in a manner that essentially violates the Geneva Conventions protecting Palestinians.
“How the decision will be implemented remains to be seen,” he noted, clarifying that he cannot predict at this time how the decision will be implemented.
The International Court of Justice in The Hague yesterday called on Israel to do everything possible to prevent any act of genocide in the Gaza Strip and to allow humanitarian aid to enter, in its historic decision on South Africa’s lawsuit against Israel.
Mr. Emilianides said it is also important that some states had committed in advance to respect the decision, such as Germany and other allies of Israel.
“Certainly, it’s a court decision, so we’re no longer talking about a political document issued by the General Assembly or otherwise attributed to political formations, so this decision cannot be ignored,” he said.
On the other hand, “I emphasize this because it was something that Israel strongly sought and Benjamin Netanyahu immediately emphasized after the decision, that the failure to grant immediate ceasefire did not fully satisfy the other side, given that the demand was, among other things, for an immediate ceasefire.” And the political demand before the UN was a demand for a ceasefire, he added.
He mentioned that “it’s a significant decision, I consider it against Israel because there is a decision that concerns Israel and imposes some obligations on Israel.”
Simply put, he noted, “This decision does not go so far as to demand a ceasefire, which was a key demand of those opposed to Israel and its policies at this stage.”
