The International Court of Justice’s judgment regarding the war in Gaza, which was delivered on Friday, January 26, was not intended to make a final determination on whether Israel has committed genocidal acts in Gaza.

Instead, the judgment determined whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the case and to ascertain whether there was a prima facie case that Israeli acts in Gaza could endanger the right of Palestinians there not to be subjected to genocidal acts.

In terms of its jurisdiction, the court held that it does have jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the case on the basis of the Genocide Convention of 1948, which both Israel and South Africa are parties to.

In article 9, the convention stipulates that “[d]isputes between the parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present convention... shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute”. The court found that there was such a dispute between South Africa and Israel.

The request made by South Africa was for the court to issue interim measures to protect the Palestinian population of Gaza from genocidal acts. In fact, the court found that at least some of South Africa’s claims – that Palestinians were being subjected by the Israeli forces to a genocidal campaign in Gaza – were plausible.

The court stated that there is a link between the rights claimed by South Africa and at least some of the provisional measures requested.

Having found broadly in favour of South Africa’s position, the court proceeded to issue a series of interim orders. The ICJ ordered Israel to: ensure that its forces do not commit genocidal acts; to prevent and punish incitement to commit genocide; and take all necessary measures to ensure humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza.

South Africa had also requested that the court order a ceasefire, which the ICJ refrained from doing. It also ordered Hamas to release the remaining hostages.

The key question now is the extent to which Israel will fulfil the obligations imposed by the ICJ. The omens on the Israeli side are not good. Immediately after the court’s judgment, Israel’s security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir responded to the court’s ruling by tweeting: “Hague Shmague” (the court is based in The Hague).

Making light of a serious judgment by the ICJ is not a promising star.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shamefully criticised the ruling by commenting that the court’s willingness to discuss genocide claims against Israel was “a disgrace that will not be erased for generations”.

Such declarations…arrogate to Israel a special status whereby international norms of law do not apply to it on account of the Holocaust- Omar Grech

This is a clear indication that Israel has no intention to abide by the ruling. One ought to bear in mind that such a decision is a flagrant breach of international law and, particularly, a blatant violation of article 94 (1) of the Charter, which states that: “Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the ICJ in any case to which it is a party.” Israel is a member of the UN and, therefore, this provision applies to it unequivocally.

The test will now fall on the international community, particularly the US and the EU, which both claim a moral superiority when it comes to the rule of law.

Their initial reactions were that Israel should abide by its international obligations. If Israel continues to reject this ruling, article 94 (2) of the UN Charter should apply.  This article states that if a member state (such as Israel) “fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council”. The council may, then, take the necessary action, including sanctions against the defaulting State.

Historically, the US has always vetoed any action against Israel. It seems a foregone conclusion that it will continue to do so.

It is worth concluding with a further reflection on a comment by the Israeli security minister: “This court does not seek justice but, rather, the persecution of the Jewish people. Decisions that endanger the continued existence of the State of Israel must not be listened to.”

Such declarations show a disrespect to international law that is breathtaking. They arrogate to Israel a special status whereby international norms of law do not apply to it on account of the Holocaust.

It brings to mind the comments of former UK foreign secretary, Douglas Hurd in connection with the Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem: “It is an excellent museum with an awful message for visitors... That message should be about the universality of human suffering... not about a special status for Israel.”

There is no antisemitism in wanting the international rule of law to be implemented without fear or favour. As the great, late UK senior law Lord Tom Bingham said in one of his final interviews: “It is very important to understand that international law is law.”

Not a very difficult concept to understand.

Omar Grech is a senior lecturer within the Department of International Law, University of Malta.