00:00So on twofold, two levels. The first level is for most international lawyers, it's not really
00:09a surprise that the court has come out and said that aid needs to come in. There is a positive
00:14obligation for Israel to allow aid in. I think the interesting part of this decision was the timing
00:21of it before the court had a chance to rule on other decisions involving Israel, but also
00:28specifically looking at the UN agency and allowing the UN agency, not just aid, but saying that
00:35Israel has an obligation to also allow UNRWA to function in the occupied territory of Palestine.
00:43But it's a non-binding ruling. So what difference is it going to make?
00:48Yeah, so really quickly, the way the International Court of Justice works is it's only binding to the
00:53parties in front of it. So if two states, so for example, if Australia takes New Zealand to the
00:57court, its decision is only binding on Australia and New Zealand. However, the court has a separate
01:03function where the UN, and specifically in this situation, the General Assembly, asked a legal
01:09question. So it's just answering the legal question, does Israel have an obligation? And the answer was
01:15yes, it does. But it's not discussing what the consequences are. It's not saying that Israel now
01:21has to, other than it just interpreting the law. So it's not technically binding on Israel, but it does
01:27have legal effects on Israel because the court has interpreted the law saying that Israel has an
01:32obligation. But it did not question the consequences of what happens if Israel breaks it. The court did
01:38not look at that.
01:40So Israel says it banned UNRWA from operating in Gaza because it believed the organisation was
01:45infiltrated by Hamas. Had Israel, Temer, taken any steps to pursue that allegation?
01:51Well, yeah. So what happens with an advisory opinion is states are allowed to submit to the
01:58court. And 44 states did submit applications, including the state of Israel, and made the
02:04argument. The court did not find that convincing legally. They did argue that the Oversight Committee
02:11of the UN did look into UNRWA. You know, seven people were fired for possibilities of working
02:17with Hamas. But as an organisation as a whole, the court did argue that they still remained
02:22impartial. And because of that, Israel has the obligation. And just to point out, the court
02:28went a step further and said that if the state of Israel doesn't want UNRWA to function in
02:35Israel, then they themselves must then provide the aid. And so the court started first by arguing
02:40that Israel was insufficient in providing that aid. And so then they must then allow the UN to come
02:46in to provide that aid, unless they are going to provide it themselves. But the court found that
02:50Israel was insufficient with providing aid that was needed for the Palestinian people.
02:55Temer, Australia decided, along with other countries, to temporarily cut funding to UNRWA
03:01on the back of Israel's claim of Hamas infiltration. The ICJ has now found those claims weren't
03:06substantiated. So what does that say about the move by Australia?
03:10Yeah, well, the interesting thing is the court said, made an argument that under the UN Charter,
03:17that all states have a responsibility and an obligation to assist the UN in their functions.
03:23And that includes UNRWA. So they were only specifically looking at Israel. But the ramifications
03:28on that to Australia is that we also must assist all UN organisations and agencies under the UN Charter.
03:36So we as Australia also have a legal obligation to assist the UN's workings. Now, it doesn't mean
03:43that we have to fund it. But under our legal obligations to respect the rules of international
03:51humanitarian law or the rules of armed conflict, we should be assisting by providing funding. And so
03:56our cutting funding on those claims is insufficient. However, it doesn't really breach our legal obligations.
04:02But it kind of makes it less substantial to say that we believe that they're run by Hamas when
04:09the court found that was not correct. Looking at possible consequences, could the UN now seek
04:16damages from Israel for ending its cooperation with staff and its operations?
04:21So that's not technically not correct. So you really for you to seek damages, there must be some
04:28injury occurred and no real injury has occurred to the United Nations. So the United Nations
04:33themselves cannot seek damages. Because of this ruling, one, it's not a binding decision. But two,
04:38either way, no damage really occurred to the United Nations. What this could do is this could
04:45prejudice Israel's current case between South Africa and Israel. South Africa has taken Israel
04:51to the International Court of Justice against violations on the Convention of Genocide.
04:55And one of the legal arguments Israel is making is this kind of security argument, which was kind of
05:02rejected by the court here arguing, we're not allowing aid in for security. So that could prejudice
05:06Israel. And if Palestine gets ever accepted into the United Nations, the Palestinian state could
05:12probably come in and take Israel for violations and then ask for compensation. But the UN itself as a body
05:18can't seek compensation.
Comments