Why Israel’s ICJ Response Matters

Israel has recently altered its longstanding policy of non-appearance before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), opting to present a rebuttal to South Africa’s allegations of genocide against Palestinians. Previously, in 2004, Israel chose not to appear before the ICJ concerning the legality of the West Bank barrier – a decision that resulted in an unfavorable ruling against the barrier. This change in approach highlights Israel’s concern over international legal outcomes and its reputation, particularly amidst accusations involving fatalities among Palestinians.

Implications of ICJ Versus ICC

The ICJ, which adjudicates on matters between states and interprets conventions like that of Genocide, lacks enforcement mechanisms. A ruling against Israel could tarnish its image in Western public opinion, potentially bolstering informal economic boycott movements. In contrast, the International Criminal Court (ICC) possesses the power to issue arrest warrants enforceable throughout much of Europe. Any charges against Israelis may have significant consequences for international travel and could deter future combat personnel due to fear of legal repercussions.

Israel’s Legal Strategy and Concerns

Israel’s decision to engage the ICJ is partly due to its ratification of the Genocide Convention, making jurisdictional denial more challenging. Meanwhile, Israel is also attempting to maintain dialogue with international judicial entities and has presented a more constructive view on international law than in the past. However, Israel continues to contest the ICC’s jurisdiction, arguing the absence of a recognized Palestinian state and Israel’s ability to investigate its own alleged wartime violations. The outcome of the ICJ case could significantly impact subsequent proceedings and challenges at the ICC.

Looking Ahead: Potential ICC Actions

The prospect of ICC criminal probes presents a more severe threat to Israel. Such an investigation could lead to direct impacts on individuals, including travel restrictions and arrest warrants. The ICC has already shown increased attention to Israel’s conduct, and a defeat at the ICJ could presage further complications at the ICC. Israel’s strategy is likely to persist in presenting its counterarguments informally, outside of official appearances, while closely monitoring the interplay between judgments of the ICJ and potential actions of the ICC.

This story was first published on jpost.com.