00:00So on twofold, two levels. The first level is for most international lawyers, it's not really a surprise that the court has come out and said that aid needs to come in. There is a positive obligation for Israel to allow aid in.
00:16I think the interesting part of this decision was the timing of it before the court had a chance to rule on other decisions involving Israel, but also specifically looking at the UN agency and allowing the UN agency not just aid, but saying that Israel 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 parties in front of it.
00:55So if two states, so for example, if Australia takes New Zealand to the court, its decision is only binding on Australia and New Zealand.
01:02However, the court has a separate function where the UN and specifically in this situation, the General Assembly asked a legal question.
01:09So it's just answering the legal question, does Israel have an obligation?
01:14And the answer was, yes, it does. But it's not discussing what the consequences are.
01:20It's not saying that Israel now has to, other than just interpreting the law.
01:24So it's not technically binding on Israel, but it does have legal effects on Israel because the court has interpreted the law saying that Israel has an obligation.
01:33But it did not question the consequences of what happens if Israel breaks it.
01:38The court did not look at that.
01:40So Israel says it banned UNRWA from operating in Gaza because it believed the organisation was infiltrated by Hamas.
01:47Had 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 court.
01:58And 44 states did submit applications, including the state of Israel, and made the argument.
02:04The court did not find that convincing legally.
02:07They did argue that the Oversight Committee of the UN did look into UNRWA.
02:13You know, seven people were fired for possibilities of working with Hamas.
02:17But as an organisation as a whole, the court did argue that they still remained impartial.
02:23And because of that, that Israel has the obligation.
02:26And just to point out, the court went a step further and said that if the state of Israel doesn't want UNRWA to function in Israel,
02:35then they themselves must then provide the aid.
02:38And so the court started first by arguing that Israel was insufficient in providing that aid.
02:43And so then they must then allow the UN to come in to provide that aid unless they are going to provide it themselves.
02:49But the court found that Israel 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 on the back of Israel's claim of Hamas infiltration.
03:04The ICJ has now found those claims weren't substantiated.
03:07So what does that say about the move by Australia?
03:11Yeah, 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.
03:24So they were only specifically looking at Israel.
03:26But the ramifications on that to Australia is that we also must assist all UN organizations and agencies under the UN Charter.
03:36So we as Australia also have a legal obligation to assist the UN's workings.
03:43Now, it doesn't mean that we have to fund it.
03:45But under our legal obligations to respect the rules of international humanitarian law or the rules of armed conflict,
03:53we should be assisting by providing funding.
03:56And so our cutting funding on those claims is insufficient.
04:00However, it doesn't really breach our legal obligations.
04:03But it kind of makes it less substantial to say that we believe that they're run by Hamas when the court found that was not correct.
04:12Looking at possible consequences, could the UN now seek damages from Israel for ending its cooperation with staff and its operations?
04:21So that's not technically not correct.
04:24So you really for you to seek damages, there must be some injury occurred and no real injury has occurred to the United Nations.
04:32The United Nations themselves cannot seek damages because of this ruling.
04:36One, it's not a binding decision.
04:38But two, either way, no damage really occurred to the United Nations.
04:42What this could do is this could prejudice Israel's current case between South Africa and Israel.
04:49South Africa has taken Israel to the International Court of Justice against violations on the Convention of Genocide.
04:56And one of the legal arguments Israel is making is this kind of security argument, which was kind of rejected by the court.
05:03He arguing we're not allowing aid in for security.
05:05So that could prejudice Israel.
05:07And if Palestine gets ever accepted into the United Nations, the Palestinian state could probably come in and take Israel for violations and then ask for compensation.
05:17But the UN itself as a body can't seek compensation.
05:20What this could be underusa is a suggestion.
05:20So that's what they do for know.
05:21What this could be under installation.
05:22So that's why we,ĐŸŃŃnelle said, a whole grosor just because of this guy's history.
05:23We don't be aware of it, especially when he weiĂy-assisted
Be the first to comment