The United States and Russia made opposing statements Wednesday during hearings at the International Court of Justice focused on whether Israel’s long-standing occupation of majority-Palestinian territory is legal.
They were among 50 countries expected to take up the matter before the ICJ (an unusually high number), underscoring the fact that the court, which once focused on serious issues such as border disputes, has suddenly become become a forum to delve into important and delicate international issues.
“The ICJ, previously seen as a kind of sleepy backwater of the UN system where disputes died, is increasingly becoming a platform for states to try to corner each other,” said Richard Gowan, director from the ONU. for the International Crisis Group.
As Russia and the United States use the court’s new prominence to promote their own agendas, both have accused each other of hypocrisy.
The United States on Wednesday reiterated its long-standing defense of Israel’s conduct in its occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as part of its need to defend itself, while Russia said that need did not justify Israel’s treatment of Palestinian civilians.
In recent months, the court, the U.N.’s top judicial body, also heard preliminary arguments in a case South Africa brought against Israel, accusing it of genocide, as Ukraine and Russia clashed over their war.
The increasing politicization of a court built around strictly legal questions worries the broader powers, Gowan said. Recent cases involving Israel, Ukraine and Myanmar touched on issues that the United States, Russia and China, respectively, consider their jurisdiction.
“The ICJ is a place where small countries can align themselves and take advantage of international law to limit what great powers and their allies try to do,” Gowan said.
The case over the legality of Israel’s occupation was triggered by a General Assembly vote long before the current war. In a separate case brought by South Africa after the war began, judges have not yet ruled on whether Israel committed genocide, but decreed that Israel must take steps to prevent it.
On Wednesday, the United States and Russia did not speak directly in the courtroom in The Hague. But Russia’s ambassador to the Netherlands, Vladimir Tarabrin, criticized the United States several times, calling American policy an impediment to finding a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
Both the United States and Russia have been repeatedly accused of employing double standards at the UN in the two conflicts: the United States fails to press for a ceasefire in Gaza while demanding one in Ukraine, while Russia criticizes Israel for some of the exactly the same things Moscow has done in Ukraine.
For example, Ambassador Tarabrin said Wednesday that the deaths Israel experienced in the Hamas-led attack on October 7 did not justify the subsequent level of Israeli violence in Gaza. Although the hearing on the legality of Israel’s occupation does not focus on Gaza, from which Israel withdrew in 2005, much of Russia’s argument focused on the current war there.
“We cannot accept the logic of those officials in Israel and some Western countries who try to defend indiscriminate violence against civilians by referring to Israel’s duty to protect its nationals,” Tarabrin said.
However, the Kremlin has said it was forced to invade eastern Ukraine to protect ethnic Russians who were under attack there. The Russian invasion, which began in 2022, has devastated dozens of cities, towns and villages across the region and killed thousands of civilians.
When asked about that double standard in an interview with the BBC earlier this month, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vassily A. Nebenzia, largely evaded the question. He maintained that people in regions annexed by Moscow voted in a referendum in September 2022 to join Russia, a referendum rejected as illegal by the majority of United Nations members.
A large majority of United Nations members have repeatedly voted to demand that Russia stop the violence in Ukraine. The ICJ issued a similar ruling, although earlier this month it rejected many accusations Ukraine made against Russia in court, essentially saying its jurisdiction was limited.
At this week’s hearing, Israel refused to participate in the process and the Russian ambassador emphasized that no decision should be imposed on it. The court is expected to issue a non-binding advisory opinion.
The ICJ has no enforcement mechanism: it can only refer its rulings for action to the Security Council. The five permanent members can veto it, as the United States has repeatedly done with ceasefire resolutions in Gaza and Russia with attempts to stop the fighting in Ukraine.
Marlis Simons and Cassandra Vinograd contributed reports.