FRESH AIR

Three reasons Australia should help protect the International Court of Justice

July 24, 2023 | Greg Rose

View of the ICJ courtroom at The Hague (Image: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek)
View of the ICJ courtroom at The Hague (Image: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek)

Australia did the right thing in late December and voted against a very problematic and controversial resolution of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York.

The UNGA resolution in question requested an international legal ruling on sanctions to be imposed on Israel by UN Member States. The request went to the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) in The Hague.

The resolution was not supported by most UN member states. It was adopted with only 87 votes in favour, despite 106 member states voting against, abstaining or absent in the vote on 30 December 2022.

The ICJ has now asked UN Member States to make submissions to it on this matter. The Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which has 56 UN Member States, has indicated its member States will make submissions for the Court demanding action against the Jewish State. It advertised a 20-page submission template and teams of dozens of lawyers to help member states make submissions.

There are three good reasons for Australia to make an urgent contrary submission to the ICJ.

First, the ICJ is requested to deal with the whole of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute in an advisory procedure in which one of the two parties will be absent. Israel will not be endorsing the misuse of the advisory procedure against it by participating in it. The Court Registrar is not equipped to investigate complex disputed factual issues and has no investigators. It will not have the ability to objectively and independently evaluate the distorted versions of the facts that it will be presented with.

Furthermore, the UN General Assembly resolution formulated the premises of the requested ruling, based on factual allegations that are simply untrue. For example, it misleadingly asserts Israeli annexation of the West Bank, although the only territory Israel has annexed is East Jerusalem. The UNGA request also alleges grave breaches of Palestinian human rights but calls for the court to rely for factual information upon untested reports by the UN Works and Relief Agency for Palestinians (the only UN agency which exists to serve only one people) and other UN bodies politicised similarly to the UNGA. Relying on this material as the basis for a ruling would effectively subordinate the ICJ to these UN agencies.

Second, the UN General Assembly’s request undermines the central legal framework for peace negotiations to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a framework that was adopted by both the Palestinian and Israeli leaderships – the Oslo Accords. Moreover, although the UNGA itself endorsed those accords – yet it does not mention them in its request to the ICJ. An ICJ ruling that diminishes or sidelines the Oslo Accords would only deepen political divisions, entrench partisanship in the UN and render the conflict more violent and intractable.

The 1993 Oslo Accords specify that key issues are subject to negotiation between the two parties, and until a final agreement is reached, Israel is to maintain a military government in the West Bank. The Oslo Accords also specify that Palestinian self-determination would in part be the product of “direct, free and general political elections” – yet Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is in the 18th year of his four-year presidential term, and denounced peace negotiations with Israel a dozen years ago. The UNGA might have done better to urge that the Palestinians simply hold elections and return to the negotiating table to discuss peace.

Thirdly, judges are mandated to decide law, not politics. The ICJ was never designed to force judicial procedures on UN Members States in a dispute without their consent. The UNGA request is a Kafkaesque legal strategy designed to promote the interests of one side in armed conflict by manipulating the ICJ Statute, subverting the key principle in that Statute – which is national consent to ICJ dispute resolution. To issue a legal ruling advising the General Assembly in an international dispute based on merely presumed facts presented by other UN political institutions would undermine the fundamental principle of sovereign consent, central to the whole concept of the ICJ.

It follows that the gravest harm of the ICJ delivering the legal ruling requested by the UNGA would be the encouragement of further abuse of international law. It would undermine the principle of honouring legal agreements, compromise the Court’s judicial function, erode truth-seeking and interpretation of law in accordance with its intended proper purposes, and obstruct peaceful settlement of disputes. In the long term, this would significantly undermine respect for international law and the integrity of international legal institutions.

Countries that truly value the UN system will make submissions to the UN Court urging it not to give the politicised legal advice demanded in the UNGA resolution. Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong can exercise self-interested good sense by making a submission focussed on protecting the principles of the UN Charter and the apolitical legal role of the ICJ. Australia even has a judge on the bench of the Court, Prof Hilary Charlesworth, who could consider any such submission, and might urge the resumption of the Oslo legal obligations and peace negotiations.

Will Australia step up in time to make a submission supporting its December vote against the UN Court becoming a “lawfare” puppet that dances to the tune piped by the politicised UN General Assembly? Australia has very little time to act if it is going to try to protect the International Court of Justice from a calamitous decline, pushed by a resolution that our government rightly opposed in December.

Gregory Rose is Professor of Law at the University of Wollongong, and Director of Research at The Hague Initiative for International Cooperation.

RELATED ARTICLES

(image: Shutterstock/Svet Foto)

Military strikes alone won’t stop the Houthis without direct pressure on Iran

Mar 20, 2025 | Featured, Fresh AIR
Image: X

Pay-for-Slay is likely still Pay-for-Slay

Mar 7, 2025 | Fresh AIR
Image: X

The missing pieces of the Thai hostages story

Feb 21, 2025 | Fresh AIR
Damaged section of Kamal Adwan Hospital (image: World Health Organisation)

The latest IDF raid on the Kamal Adwan Hospital debunks absurd UN report

Jan 9, 2025 | Featured, Fresh AIR
Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei (left), the late Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and the late commander of the IRGC's Qods Force Qassem Soleimani

The Axis of Resistance is not dead yet

Dec 19, 2024 | Featured, Fresh AIR
Iranian women being ushered into a van by "Morality police" (Image: X)

Iranian human rights have significantly worsened since the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests

Dec 18, 2024 | Featured, Fresh AIR
D11a774c 2a47 C987 F4ce 2d642e6d9c8d

Bibi in DC, the Houthi threat and the politicised ICJ opinion

Jul 26, 2024 | Update
Image: Shutterstock

Nine months after Oct. 7: Where Israel stands now

Jul 10, 2024 | Update
Palestinian Red Crescent workers from Al-Najjar Hospital in the city of Rafah, south of the Gaza Strip (Image: Shutterstock)

Hamas’ impossible casualty figures

Mar 28, 2024 | Update
455daec3 C2a8 8752 C215 B7bd062c6bbc

After the Israel-Hamas ceasefire for hostages deal

Nov 29, 2023 | Update
Screenshot of Hamas bodycam footage as terrorists approach an Israeli vehicle during the terror organisation's October 7, 2023 attack in southern Israel, released by the IDF and GPO (Screenshot)

Horror on Video / International Law and the Hamas War

Oct 31, 2023 | Update
Sderot, Israel. 7th Oct, 2023. Bodies of dead Israelis lie on the ground following the attacks of Hamas (Image: Ilia Yefimovich/dpa/Alamy Live News)

Israel’s Sept. 11, only worse

Oct 11, 2023 | Update
Screenshot 2025 03 28 At 11.35.48 AM

The day after the end of the Gaza war – and the new opportunities it presents: Ehud Yaari at the Sydney Institute

Mar 28, 2025 | Featured, Video
Screenshot

Jonathan Conricus in conversation with Joel Burnie

Feb 24, 2025 | Featured, Video
Sydney, January 2025 (Image: X)

Reacting to the latest antisemitic attacks: Colin Rubenstein on SBS Hebrew radio

Feb 3, 2025 | Video
Screenshot

Antisemitic bomb plot “a massive escalation”: Colin Rubenstein on Sky News

Jan 30, 2025 | Featured, Video
(Image: screenshot)

Antisemitism database “first step of many more that need to be taken”: Dr Colin Rubenstein on ABC TV

Jan 22, 2025 | Featured, Video
Screenshot 2024 12 20 At 12.44.43 PM

AIJAC speaks out against hate… Will you join us?

Dec 20, 2024 | Featured, Video

RECENT POSTS

Anti-Hamas protests in Gaza (Image: Reddit)

Gaza protests: A turning point or a moment of desperation?

A “deep well of hatred” in segments of the Muslim community contributed to the recent outburst  of extremism and antisemitism in Australia (Image: Diana Zavaleta/ Shutterstock)

Essay: The Politics of Hatred

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian (left) may hint at agreeing to nuclear negotiations, but it is Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei (right) who will ultimately make the decision (Image: Khamenei.ir)

Iran: Moving beyond diplomatic delusions

A statue of Moses holding the Ten Commandments (Image: Shutterstock)

The Last Word: One Story

Israeli PM Netanyahu controversially announces he needs to fire Shit Bet chief Ronen Bar (Screenshot)

Marching toward controversy and division

SORT BY TOPICS