How Israel’s Legal System Sustains Apartheid in Palestine

Munir Nuseibah

Herein lies the challenge: the International Court of Justice has rendered its findings and applied the law to the facts, but of course it does not have an army or police to enforce its decisions. Nonetheless, this advisory opinion carries significant weight, particularly regarding the obligations it imposes on states. The primary way for states to act upon this opinion is through policy enforcement, including the imposition of sanctions.

The critical question now is whether the General Assembly, which requested the court’s opinion, will take action to implement sanctions or if we will witness a continuation of the inertia observed over the past decades. While the General Assembly has long supported Palestinian rights, including the right to self-determination, this support has not always translated into concrete action. The Security Council, influenced by countries such as the United States, Britain, and France, is likely to continue its refusal to impose sanctions on Israel.

Therefore, it falls to the General Assembly to pursue actions beyond the Security Council’s purview. This includes advocating for sanctions and monitoring state behaviors to ensure compliance — whether they are imposing sanctions, providing weapons, or engaging in trade that supports the apartheid regime.

Herein lies the challenge: the International Court of Justice has rendered its findings and applied the law to the facts, but of course it does not have an army or police to enforce its decisions.

This approach is not unprecedented. During the apartheid era in South Africa, a special committee known as the Apartheid Committee was established to report on apartheid policies and observe which countries were implementing sanctions. Initially, support for ending apartheid came predominantly from the Global South, but over time, the Global North, including…