The horrors in Gaza are beyond comprehension. Never has the need for a ceasefire, urgent humanitarian help and international dialogue about a long-term plan been more apparent. But it’s hard to see these happening. International rules are supposed to ensure that atrocities such as those being systematically perpetrated in Gaza don’t happen, and if they do, they’re stopped and those responsible face justice. But the rules are being flouted.

Eyes on the ICJ

In January, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations (UN) body that adjudicates disputes between states, acted quickly. The month before, the government of South Africa had filed a case alleging that the Israeli government was, through its acts and omissions, breaching the 1948 Genocide Convention.

The Convention defines genocide as ‘acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group’. Israel strongly rejects the claims, insisting it’s acting in self-defence and accusing South Africa of an antisemitic ‘blood libel’.

While it’s expected the Court could take years to reach a verdict on the substance of the case, it has acknowledged the urgency and severity of the situation by issuing a rapid interim ruling. Judges have concluded that there’s a plausible risk of genocide and overwhelmingly voted to issue Israel with six orders, including that it must ‘take all measures in its power’ to prevent acts that contravene the Genocide Convention.

As well as refraining from a catalogue of violent acts banned by the Convention, the Israeli state must put an end to public incitements to genocide and facilitate humanitarian access to Gaza. It’s also required to submit a report within a month on the steps it’s taken to comply with the ruling. While the Court disappointed many by stopping short of ordering a ceasefire, it’s hard to see how Israel could comply with the ruling without immediately and drastically changing its approach.

ICJ rulings are binding on states, but Israel shows no willingness to comply. The military offensive has continued and recently Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rebuffed a proposed ceasefire and proclaimed that victory is within reach. Within a week of the Court issuing its orders, close to a thousand more Palestinians had been killed. Nowhere near enough humanitarian aid is being allowed in. There’s no let-up in the genocidal rhetoric.

When states don’t comply with ICJ rulings it falls to the UN Security Council to act. But staunch Israel ally the USA can be expected to use its veto, as one of the Council’s five permanent members, to block any action on Israel, as it has done repeatedly over the years.

It was a similar situation in 2022, when Ukraine brought a case against Russia under the Genocide Convention. That time the ICJ went even further than with Gaza, ordering Russia to halt its invasion. But Russia simply chose to ignore the ruling.

UNRWA in the firing line

Even without any subsequent Security Council action, the ICJ’s ruling against Israel could help increase the international moral pressure on the government and its allies to change their behaviours. But global attention has quickly refocused on Israel’s accusations against staff of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA.

Established in the wake of the 1948 war that drove many Palestinians out of the newly established state of Israel, UNRWA has remained the key provider of humanitarian help and essential services for Palestinians. During the current conflict, with much international efforts blocked at the borders, it’s provided a vital lifeline for people under bombardment in Gaza. Over two million people are currently said to rely on it for their survival. UNRWA has paid a heavy price too: over 150 staff members have reportedly been killed since Israel’s offensive began.

Shortly after the ICJ ruling, Israel reported that it had shared a dossier with allies alleging that 12 of UNRWA’s 13,000-plus staff in Gaza had been involved in the horrific attacks carried out by Hamas and other groups against people in Israeli on 7 October. UNRWA immediately fired several of those accused and the UN launched an urgent independent review.

But the response from many of UNRWA’s donors has been to immediately throw their weight behind Israel. Eighteen states, including UNRWA’s largest funders, the USA and Germany, quickly announced they’d pause their funding. Around US$440 million is reportedly on hold. In the USA, a law has since been proposed to ban the government giving any funding to UNRWA.

Not all states were quick to rush to judgement. Ireland, Norway and Spain are among those that have committed to continuing their support, given the scale of the humanitarian need. The Norwegian government issued a statement distinguishing between the organisation and any individual staff members who may have committed crimes. Portugal and Spain announced additional aid.

But the scale of the funding suspensions has made UNRWA’s work unviable unless they’re quickly reversed. UNRWA has warned it will run out of funds by the end of February. The consequences would be unimaginably dire. UNRWA’s head Philippe Lazzarini has called this a further ‘collective punishment’ for Palestinians, on top of Israel’s bombardment. Just after the ICJ ordered effective humanitarian relief, the humanitarian response is in danger of being further choked off.

Israel hasn’t so far shared its dossier with the UN. Journalists who’ve seen it have questioned its claims and the evidence provided. States stand accused of suspending funding on the basis of flimsy evidence, provided by a government that has made no secret of wanting to end UNRWA’s presence in Gaza and that has only benefited from deflecting international attention from the ICJ ruling.

Blatant hypocrisy

The independent inquiry launched by the UN should be quick and transparent, and its recommendations should be implemented. Anyone found complicit in the 7 October attacks must face justice. But until the inquiry has concluded, states shouldn’t suspend funding at a time when it’s so urgently needed. If UNRWA doesn’t provide humanitarian help, no one else will.

Unfortunately, there’s scant evidence that the global north states that have paused their funding will act impartially. Blatant hypocrisy has been on full display since the start of the conflict’s current phase. The USA, at the forefront of international condemnation of the multiple atrocities committed by Russia in its war on Ukraine, remains Israel’s biggest supporter. It refuses to subject human rights crimes in Gaza to the same standard.

The two Security Council resolutions passed to date – the first fully six weeks after the bombardment began – were weak, with stronger versions vetoed, and haven’t led to action. Israel can confidently ignore them with US support. It’s the mirror image of Russia’s war on Ukraine, where the USA urged coordinated action but Russia used its veto to ensure no resolution was passed.

Hypocrisy has been on full display towards the ICJ too. Compare South Africa’s case with that brought by The Gambia against Myanmar in 2019, accusing it of committing genocide against its Rohingya population.

Last November, six global north states joined the case in support of The Gambia’s position. The UK was one of them. It submitted an argument that systemic actions such as deprivation of food and medical services and forced displacement could be considered acts of genocide, particularly when committed against children. The UK hasn’t made the same argument about similar acts in Gaza.

In November, US President Joe Biden said that the ICJ was ‘one of humanity’s most critical institutions to advance peace’. And yet his government attempted to rubbish South Africa’s case, describing it as ‘meritless’.

Time to respect human rights

It’s important to go back to the ideas that motivated the UN’s formation in 1945 and the development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention in 1948.

The UN’s job, as the first article of its Charter makes clear, is to maintain international peace and security and achieve international cooperation to promote and encourage respect for human rights. The opening of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out why it’s needed: because ‘disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind’.

In Gaza, and in the world’s many other conflicts, there’s ample evidence of ‘barbarous acts’, committed with near certainty of impunity. While there’s a long-running problem with the lack of enforcement mechanisms for international law, uneven enforcement results from the selective approaches taken by many states.

Based on self-interested calculations, there are some human rights they care about and some they don’t. They defend the human rights of people in allied countries whose interests coincide with theirs, or those whose rights are being violated by their enemies. At the basest level, some states can be accused of taking a racist approach, concerned for the human rights of white people but not of people of colour.

The danger is that, if trust in the UN system collapses, people will turn towards authoritarian alternatives. The hypocrisy of global north states gives new scope for states such as China and Russia to position themselves as the global south’s champions and channel justified anger into the construction of an even less open global order with even more impunity for human rights abuses.

Civil society continues to call for a rules-based international order, in which all states are treated the same and laws to prevent and protect against genocide and other gross human rights violations are respected. With reform on the agenda at the UN’s Summit of the Future later this year, civil society is looking for some moral leadership from states, their heads and international institutions. Sadly, that currently seems in extremely short supply.