I only hope that Biden will, on this occasion, stand up for justice.

Friday mornings much-anticipated decision by the International Court of Justicemarks the greatest moment in the history of the [court], says Richard Falk, anoted international law professor and former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied PalestinianTerritory.

It strengthens the claims of international law to be respected by all sovereign statesnot just some, Falk says about the ICJs ruling that South Africas magisterial presentation of evidencewas sufficient to conclude Israel may be committing, conspiring to commit, or publicly inciting the commission of genocide against Palestinians inGaza.

The ICJ decision gave new strength to South Africas groundbreaking accomplishmentdemolishing the taboo against holding Israel accountable for its crimes. As South Africas foreign ministry put it,Today marks adecisive victory for the international rule of law and asignificant milestone in the search for justice for the Palestinianpeople.

The decision is amomentous one, says the foreign ministry, noting how important the determination is for the implementation of the international rule of law.South Africa thanks the Court for its swiftruling.

Fridays decision was asignificant victory beyond what most observers hoped fornot only the recognition that Israels actions are plausibly genocidal, but because of the imposition of provisional measures based on measures South Africa requested in order to stop Israels actions that are continuing to kill and put Palestinians atrisk.

The ruling was also particularly important because of the overwhelming majority of judges who supported it, including the sole U.S. judge on the court. When the president of the court, Judge Joan Donoghue, who was alongtime State Department lawyer before being elected to the ICJ, read out the provisional measures, she included the line-up of how judges voted on each one. And she was among the 15 or 16 out of 17 judges who supported everyone.

While judges serve as individuals and are not supposed to represent their governments, there is no question that national allegiances and other political considerations often emerge. In this case, only the judge from Uganda opposed all the courts measures while the temporary Israeli judge opposed four out ofsix.

It should not have been asurprise that this preliminary finding recognized that Israels war against the entire population of Gaza may well constitute genocide. The definition, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, says that two things are required to fulfill that definition: aspecific intent to destroy all or part of aracial, ethnic, religious or other group (in this case the Palestinian population of Gaza), and the commission or attempt to commit any one of five specific acts to realize that intent. South Africa presented evidence that Israel is already committingand conspiring to commit and inciting commitmentof at least four of those acts: killing, seriously injuring members of the group, creating conditions that make survival of the group impossible, and preventing births within the group. The ICJ decision was not afull determination of the facts and the lawas usual, those issues in international legal venues take years. This kind of initial finding requires avery low bar, only that it isplausible that Israels military actions, the siege and more could plausibly be found to constitutegenocide.

It took the court only two weeks to come to this ruling, though still too long given the numbers of people the Israeli military is killing on adaily basis. But it still represents ahugely important step that will play amajor role in strengthening the growing, broadening movement for Palestinian rights that is now playing such an unprecedented role in U.S. and globalpolitics.

And then the ICJ went further, imposing six provisional measures to try and ensure that the rights of Palestinians might be protected from those actions. The measures imposed by the court say Israelshall take all necessary measures to prevent the commission of any of the five acts named in the Genocide Convention, that it ensure that its military forces do not commit any of those acts, that it punish any public incitement to those acts, that it take all measures to provide humanitarian assistance, to prevent the destruction of evidence relevant to the charges of genocide, and to report to the court within one month on what Tel Aviv is doing to abide by the courtsruling.

The first measure was the only one weakened by the court. South Africa had requested the immediate suspension of military operations: acease-fire. The ICJ language refers only to takingall necessary measures to prevent the five genocidal actions, but without demanding an actual end to the military assault. However, the Courts second measure arguably answers that weaker language by keeping to the South African request that Israel make surethat the military does not commit any of the relevant actsmeaning that the IDF should stop killing people and be prevented from doing so. Not just prevented from killingtoo many people, as President Joe Bidens administration and others have urged, but prevented from killing anypeople.

In both anational and international context, the Courts decision poses ahuge problem for the Biden administration. White House and State Department officials took the absolute position immediately after South Africa filed their petition to the ICJ that the claim of genocide wasmeritless. But with aclose-to-unanimous court ruling that Israels assault on Gaza is plausibly genocidaland with the singular U.S. judge standing with the majoritythat dismissive attitude, and related claims thatthe UN is biased against Israel will not get muchtraction.

Just moments after Judge Donoghue finished reading the courts ruling, Falk indicated thatthis outcome poses the greatest political dilemma for the Bidenpresidency.

I only hope that Biden will, on this occasion, Falk said,stand up forjustice.

It is important to remember that while ICJ decisions are binding in international law, there is no appeal, and they are not self-enforcing. The court has no army, not even apolice force to send around the world to make sure its orders are being implemented. What it does have, as part of the UN system, is an extraordinary level of credibility. All countries are bound by itsdecisions.

The Genocide Convention itself, unlike most parts of international law, places specific obligations on every party to the treatynot only to countries who could be charged with violating its terms. So Fridays ICJ decision applies to all 153 governments that are party to the Genocide Conventionmeaning they have specific obligations to prevent genocide from occurring, to stop it when it does occur, to not be complicit in genocidal actions, and to punish any incitement to genocide that might occur in their owncountries.

That means that if this decision goes to the UN Security Council for implementation arrangements, and if, as would be likely, the United States vetoed those efforts, and it then goes to the General Assembly, lots of possibilitiesarise.

This decision fundamentally, even if preliminary, provides avital new tool for mobilization and campaigns to force governments to escalate their pressure to stop Israels genocide. Its atool in the campaigns for cease-fire now underway around the world. In the United States it will likely be apersuasive tool for congresspeople, city councils, universities and other institutionsas well as the Biden administrationto support acease-fire. Because now its not only aquestion of moral obligation to stop the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents, its also about abiding by the requirements of international law. And for some people, that may make all thedifference.

With this new tool in hand, aU.S. shift towards supportingand demandinga cease-fire may be possible muchsooner.

Republished from In These Times, original article published 26 January, 2024