International law is at a crossroads: Can Gaza spark a global reckoning?
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
International law is fighting for relevance. The outcome of this fight is likely to change the entire world’s political dynamics, which were shaped by World War II and sustained through the selective interpretation of the law by dominant countries.
In principle, international law should always have been relevant, if not paramount, in governing the relationships between all countries, large and small, to resolve conflicts before they turn into outright wars. It should also have worked to prevent a return to an era of exploitation that allowed Western colonialism practically to enslave the Global South for hundreds of years.
Unfortunately, international law, which was in theory supposed to reflect global consensus, was hardly dedicated to peace or genuinely invested in the decolonisation of the South.
From the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan to the war on Libya and numerous other examples, past and present, the UN was often used as a platform for the strong to impose their will on the weak. And whenever smaller countries fought back collectively, as the UN General Assembly often does, those with veto power in the Security Council and military and economic leverage used their advantage to coerce the rest based on the maxim “might is right”.
It should, therefore, hardly be a surprise to see many intellectuals and politicians in the Global South arguing that, aside from paying lip service to peace, human rights and justice, international law has always been irrelevant.
This irrelevance was put on full display through 15 months of a relentless Israeli genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza that killed and wounded over 160,000 people, a number that, according to several credible medical journals and studies, is expected to rise dramatically.
Yet, when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) opened an investigation into “plausible genocide” in Gaza on 26 January, 2024, followed by a decisive ruling on 19 July regarding the illegality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the international system began showing a pulse, however faint. The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant in November were more proof that West-centred legal institutions are capable of change.
The angry American response to all of this was predictable.
Washington has been fighting against international accountability for many years. The US Congress under the George W Bush administration passed a law as early as 2002 that shielded US soldiers “against criminal prosecution” by the ICC, to which the US is not a party. The so-called Hague Invasion Act authorised the use of military force to rescue American citizens or military personnel detained by the ICC.
READ: US supports Israel’s decision to block Gaza aid
Naturally, many of Washington’s measures to pressure, threaten or punish international institutions have been linked to shielding Israel under various guises. The global outcry and demands for accountability following Israel’s genocide in Gaza, however, have once again put Western governments on the defensive. For the first time, Israel has been facing the kind of scrutiny that has rendered it, in many respects, a pariah state.
Instead of reconsidering their approach to Israel, and refraining from feeding the war machine, many Western governments lashed out at civil society merely for advocating the enforcement of international law.
Those targeted included UN-affiliated human rights defenders.
On 18 February, German police descended on the Junge Welt venue in Berlin as if they were about to apprehend a notorious criminal. They surrounded the building in full gear, sparking a bizarre drama that should have never taken place in a country that perceives itself as democratic. The reason behind the security mobilisation was none other than Francesca Albanese, an Italian lawyer and an outspoken critic of the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
Ms Albanese also happens to be the current UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories. If it were not for the UN’s intervention, she could have been arrested simply for demanding that Israel must be held accountable for its crimes against Palestinians.
Germany, however, is not an exception. Other Western powers, lead amongst them the US, are taking part in this moral crisis. Washington has taken serious and troubling steps, not only to protect Israel and itself from accountability to international law, but also to punish the very international institutions, its judges and officials for daring to question Israel’s behaviour.
Indeed, as recently as 13 February, the US sanctioned the ICC’s chief prosecutor due to his stance on Israel. After some hesitance, Karim Khan did what no other ICC prosecutor had done before when he issued those arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. They are currently wanted for “crimes against humanity and war crimes”.
The moral crisis deepens when the judges become the accused, as Khan found himself at the receiving end of endless Western media attacks and abuse, in addition to US sanctions.
As disturbing as all of this is, there is a silver lining.
There is an opportunity for the international legal and political system to be fixed, based on new standards, justice that applies to all and accountability that is expected from and for all.
Those who continue to support Israel have practically disowned international law altogether. The consequences of their decisions are dire. But for the rest of humanity, the Gaza war can spark a global reckoning, and provide the opportunity to reconstruct a more equitable world, one that is not moulded by those who are powerful militarily, but by the need to stop senseless killings of innocent children, women and the elderly.
OPINION: Israel and its supporters struggle to hide behind the last fig leaf of decency
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
