zlacker

>>xbar+(OP)
Glad to see Israel face some responsibility for its horrific acts against civilians.

> The court ruled that Israel must do all it can to prevent genocide, including refraining from killing Palestinians or causing harm to them

Sounds like a ceasefire to me. How else would they do this? Definitely not with any of the military tactics Israel is currently using.

>>smooth+P
Except SA specifically asked the court to require a ceasefire, which would have immediate consequences via security council vote and no more munitions landing in Israel. And the judges voted it down

This isn't a read between the lines situation, because SA's request was specifically for the court to temporarily rule for a full immediate ceasefire until the larger case could be heard

What is interesting here is that by mis-reading the verdict like yourself, and Israel assuming the worst, both sides immediately came out saying today was a huge win. So at least we have that, everyone (but the Palestinians, who aren't a side in this case) is happy

>>shmatt+ZM
From what i understand, the ceasefire was an extreme long shot by south africa and nobody really expected the icj to grant it. Particularly because the court cant order hamas to do anything and a one sided cease fire seems kind of unreasonable, but also the right to self defense is pretty fundamental in international law.

>>bawolf+BY
Is ICJ even able to order a ceasefire? ICJ did not recognize the activities of Israel as the right to self defense. ICJ would have recognized the activities of rebel force against the genocide as the right to self defense, but I don't think that is a question that came up.

>>nashas+Fh1
Yes, the ICJ can order a ceasefire. It ordered Russia to stop its invasion of Ukraine, for example. In this case it decided not to, but it did order other measures (which hopefully will save lives, but time will tell).

>>bright+IC1
There is some nuance there because russia's justification for the war was that ukraine is comitting genocide. It is less clear that the icj can order it for a war of self-defense.

The argument goes that the ICJ derives its authority from the UN charter, where article 51 states "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security..."

So just because icj can tell someone to knock it off if they (falsely) claim the reason for the war is to prevent genocide, it is unclear they can do so when the reason is self-defense after an attack

[IANAL dont know how accurate this is]