What does the ICJ's ruling on Israel's Rafah offensive mean?
ICJ president Nawaf Salam (centre) stands during a ruling over the situation in Rafah
- Published
The UN's top court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), issued a ruling last week on Israel's military offensive in Rafah.
It was the latest pronouncement by the court in a case brought by South Africa, which accuses Israel of a genocide in the Gaza Strip. Israel has vehemently denied the allegation.
Since the case began, the court has delivered a series of contested rulings.
The two most important concern whether or not the court has suggested there is a risk of genocide in Gaza. The second ruling - delivered on 24 May - includes hotly disputed wording over the military operations in Rafah.
It is now being intensively scrutinised and argued over.
In last week鈥檚 order, the court ruled by 13 votes to two that Israel should: 鈥淚mmediately 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.鈥
Headlines suggested this was an order to stop all military operations in Rafah - but some of the judges disagree with what it means.
Five of the 15 published their own views. Three had supported the order and two had opposed it.
Judge Bogdan Aurescu from Romania said he voted for the order, but revealed that he thought the court was being 鈥渦nclear鈥 and underlined that it could not ban Israel from taking legitimate action in self-defence.
Judge Dire Tladi, from South Africa, disagreed with Aurescu, even though they had voted for the same order. He said it told Israel 鈥渋n explicit terms鈥 to stop its offensive in Rafah.
The two judges who had opposed the order declared that whatever the others had voted in favour of, it was surely not a demand for Israel to begin a unilateral ceasefire in Rafah.
Uganda鈥檚 Julia Sebutinde said the court could not 鈥渕icromanage鈥 a war and Israel鈥檚 Aharon Barak, temporarily-appointed for the case, said the ICJ鈥檚 order was 鈥渜ualified鈥 so long as the country adhered to the Genocide Convention.
The summary from Germany鈥檚 judge, Georg Nolte, is the most revealing to where the court finds itself.
The order, as he voted for it, banned military action 鈥渁s far as it could endanger the rights of the Palestinian people鈥 to be protected from a risk of genocide. But he stressed: 鈥淭he court can play only a limited role in resolving the situation. It must be careful not to overstep the limits of what it can and should do.鈥
