How do Americans really feel about #climate change? Recent data shows that half of #Americans see climate change as a critical threat to the vital interests of the United States in the next 10 years. But that same data shows there's a big difference in the partisan breakdown of those numbers.
In short: The United Nations' International Court of Justice ruled on Jan 26. that while South Africa’s genocide case against Israel is under review, Israel must "take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide" as well as immediately allow for humanitarian assistance in the Gaza Strip. But the judges did not approve the request to stop military action in Gaza nor did they order a cease-fire. One judge, Julia Sebutinde of Uganda, dissented on all six provisional measures the court approved, voting no on more measures than the judge Israel appointed to the ICJ for this case.
Four out of six of the provisional measures that were approved passed in a 15-2 vote, with Sebutinde and Israeli-appointed judge Aharon Barak dissenting. Sebutinde was the only dissent on the other two measures, which stated that Israel must prevent and punish any incitement to commit genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza, and that Israel must take “immediate and effective measures” to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.
Sebutinde has served on the court during three other genocide cases. In the two of those cases in which provisional measures were asked for, Sebutinde voted in favor of them. This includes the 2022 case between Ukraine and Russia, in which she voted in favor of all three provisional measures that passed, which included demands that Russia immediately cease its military operations in Ukraine.
Sebutinde wrote in her dissent that "the dispute is ... essentially and historically a political one” between Israel and Palestinians and should be resolved through “a diplomatic or negotiated settlement” and an “implementation in good faith” of the United Nations Security Council’s resolutions.
On Nov. 15, the Security Council passed a resolution that called for “humanitarian pauses” to allow aid into Gaza and for the immediate release of all hostages held by Hamas and other groups. On Dec. 22, the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that all parties involved “allow, facilitate and enable” the delivery of humanitarian assistance into Gaza.
The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.
Sebutinde wrote she doesn’t believe that the Israel-Hamas war, or more widely the dispute between Israel and the Palestinian people, is a legal issue “calling for judicial settlement” by the ICJ.
“Unfortunately, the failure, reluctance or inability of States to resolve political controversies such as this one through effective diplomacy or negotiations may sometimes lead them to resort to a pretextual invocation of treaties like the Genocide Convention, in a desperate bid to force a case into the context of such a treaty, in order to foster its judicial settlement: rather like the proverbial ‘Cinderella’s glass slipper,’” Sebutinde wrote in her dissent.
The judge added that she didn’t believe South Africa’s provisional measures, as requested under the U.N. genocide law, were plausible because “the acts allegedly committed by Israel were not accompanied by a genocidal intent.”
Sebutinde has been on the ICJ since February 2012 and is currently serving her second term. She is the first African woman to sit on the ICJ. Before joining the court, she sat on the High Court of Uganda and the Special Court of Sierra Leone.
The ICJ is composed of 15 judges that serve nine-year terms. They are elected by the U.N. Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly, and each judge must be from a different country. But ICJ judges are not representatives of their countries, as Uganda reiterated after Sebutinde's dissent. They are “independent judges whose first task, before taking up their duties, is to make a solemn declaration in open court that they will exercise their powers impartially and conscientiously.” The ICJ panel in this case also includes two “ad hoc” judges chosen by South Africa and Israel since their nationalities were not already on the bench.
In short: The United Nations' International Court of Justice announced its decision on Jan. 26, regarding provisional measures requested by South Africa in its case charging Israel with genocide in the Gaza Strip. The judges ruled that Israel must "take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide" as well as take immediate measures to allow for humanitarian assistance. But the judges did not approve the request to stop military action in Gaza nor did they order a cease-fire.
The decision comes just 28 days after the measures to stop military action were initially requested, a quick turnaround for the United Nations court. In 49 previous cases, analyzed by Blue Marble, in which requests for provisional measures were made, the court approved at least one of the requests in a majority of cases, but were less likely to approve them when they included a request to stop military action.
Since the United Nations’ founding in 1945, the ICJ, considered the U.N.’s main judicial body, has ruled on at least 49 cases in which requests for provisional measures were made.
Provisional measures are temporary orders that call upon states in conflict to stop “irreparable harm” from occurring while the court is deciding on the merits of the case, according to Leila Sadat, the special adviser on crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court prosecutor.
Blue Marble analyzed 49 ICJ cases involving provisional measures. Of the ICJ cases analyzed, at least one provisional measure was approved in 27 of the cases (or 55% of the time), while provisional measures were denied 22 times. It’s worth noting, though, that 10 of those denials involved Serbia asking for the same provisional measures against 10 different countries.
Provisional measures are not a ruling on the merits of a case. Specifically in the case being heard against Israel, the granting of a provisional measure would not be “an adjudication of genocide,” Sadat said.
Of the 24 cases Blue Marble analyzed in which the requested provisional measures involved some cessation of military aggression, the court approved measures in nine cases, which is 38%.
Blue Marble includes in this category rulings that have ranged from orders to cease military action, use of force, or armed aggression; to withdraw forces from specific territories; to prohibit occupation of specific territories by armed forces; and to stop supporting military or paramilitary activities. Some examples are a 1990 order that both Senegal’s and Guinea-Bissau’s navies stay out of a disputed body of water during a case, and a 2022 order that Russia stop all military actions in Ukraine.
The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.
These are the measures to be adopted:
The court also ruled that Israel must submit a report within one month on the measures it's taken to adhere to the ICJ's ruling. After South Africa receives the report, it can submit comments.
The court did not approve the request to stop military action in Gaza. Even if it had, while ICJ decisions are legally binding and cannot be appealed, multiple countries have ignored the court's rulings. In 2022, Russia ignored a court order to stop invading Ukraine. The U.S. has ignored at least two ICJ orders, the first, in 1986, when the ICJ ruled that U.S. support for the right-wing Nicaraguan rebels, the contras, was illegal, and the second, in 2018, when the court demanded the U.S. make exceptions in its sanctions on Iran.
South Africa's case against Israel is the fifth time the UN genocide law has been used this way.
According to South Africa’s application to the ICJ asking it to hear the case, Israel’s actions against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack are in breach of a 1948 U.N. convention that defines and outlines genocide as a crime.
According to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, the term was first used in 1944 by a Polish Jewish lawyer in reference to the actions of the Nazis. The United Nations made genocide an international crime in 1948 and outlined it as certain acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
South Africa says Israel’s actions are “genocidal in character” because they are “intended to bring about the destruction” of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
Among its evidence, South Africa included the death toll, at the time of filing the case, of over 21,000 Palestinians, and widespread food insecurity across Gaza.
The day after South Africa presented its case to the ICJ on Jan. 11, Israel defended itself before the court. Israel largely focused on Oct. 7, when Hamas launched an attack against Israel, killing about 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, and taking more than 200 hostages.
In response to the attack, Israel launched a “complete siege” on Gaza that has now killed at least 26,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, waging “the deadliest and most destructive” military campaign in recent history, the Associated Press reported.
Now that the ICJ has decided on provisional measures, the case will begin with oral arguments. There is no definitive timeline for when a decision will be made.
Between May 1947 and November 2023, the court heard 191 cases, including four contentious cases — cases that a state files against another — involving the same international genocide law that South Africa cites in its charges against Israel. The most recent case involving genocide accusations was in 2022 related to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The most recent resolved case involving genocide charges took 14 years.
Provisional measures are ruled on more quickly. Based on an analysis of 50 cases published in the Chinese Journal of International Law in December 2023, it takes on average 51 days for the ICJ to decide on provisional measures. There is wide variation, though, researchers say, “with the shortest lasting six days and the longest stretching to 161 days."
Sadat said in early January that there was pressure on the ICJ to rule on South Africa’s requested protective measures within two months, because in the most recent genocide case that came before the ICJ — between Ukraine and Russia — the court approved Ukraine’s requested provisional measures in 18 days. It was a “lightning speed” decision in the world of international courts, Sadat said.
The ICJ panel for this case consists of 15 judges appointed for nine-year terms by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council, and two “ad hoc” judges chosen by South Africa and Israel since their nationalities were not already represented on the bench.
AJ Caughey, Kyra Dahring, and Tria Raimundo contributed reporting.
Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.
In short: Sweden’s military commander-in-chief Gen. Micael Bydén said all Swedes should mentally prepare for the possibility of war as the country moves toward joining NATO. Member countries, including Poland and Germany, have said that within the next decade Russia could attack nations that have joined the military alliance. Bydén warned that “Russia’s war against Ukraine is just a step, not an end game.” Members of Sweden’s opposition party have criticized how the message was delivered.
At an annual security and defense conference in Sweden on Jan. 7, the country’s civil defense minister, Carl-Oskar Bohlin, told attendees, “There could be war in Sweden.” Sweden’s chief of defense Micael Bydén echoed Bohlin, saying the Swedish population should mentally prepare for the possibility.
Sweden has not been involved in a war since 1814 and has “pursued a policy of non-alignment in peacetime and neutrality in wartime, basing its security on a strong national defense,” according to the Swedish government. Every person in Sweden between the ages of 16 and 70 is put in Sweden’s conscription service, and if called up must perform either military, civilian or general compulsory service. Once someone turns 18 in Sweden, they may also be enlisted and go through basic training and perform military service.
The Swedish defense officials’ concern was prompted by two recent developments: Sweden’s expected acceptance into NATO and increased threats from Russian President Vladimir Putin against neighboring NATO nations.
Finland and Sweden applied for NATO membership in May 2022, just months after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. The move signaled a break from a history of neutrality for both countries. Sweden’s then prime minister, Magdalena Andersson, said at the time that Russia’s invasion threatened Europe’s security order and made Sweden’s need for guaranteed security granted through NATO membership apparent.
“Should Sweden be the only country in the Baltic Sea region that was not a member of NATO, we would be in a very vulnerable position. We can't rule out that Russia would then increase pressure on Sweden,” she said.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, is a 31-country alliance of countries bound together by the principle of collective defense, where if one NATO member is attacked, they are all considered attacked.
Finland’s membership was approved in April 2023, while Sweden’s is currently held up, awaiting approval from NATO member Hungary, which maintains ties to Russia. Turkey had also been holding up the Nordic country’s membership, but approved Sweden’s bid on Jan. 23.
Russia’s relationship with NATO has historically been tense, but tensions grew when the international alliance considered Ukrainian membership. After Finland’s acceptance into NATO, Russia warned the country would be “the first to suffer” if tensions between Russia and NATO worsen.
The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.
Sweden has been providing Ukraine with aid as it fights against Russia’s invasion, including donating tanks.
Other NATO countries have also warned of a potential Russian attack against member nations. Poland’s national security agency said Russia could attack NATO countries in less than three years, while Germany’s defense minister said the attack could occur in five to eight years.
Andersson, now leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, said that while there is a clear Russian threat to Sweden, the defense officials’ delivery was “divisive” and ineffective.
“A lot of people are very, very worried. So it’s important for the government to follow up on the communication that’s been going on,” she said. “This is a big responsibility for the government.”
Swedish commentator and journalist Göran Greider wrote in an op-ed in Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter that he believed the warnings showed “a secret longing to finally test the Swedish fighting forces,” and that the real message was: “Give us more money.”
Sweden has been increasing its defense spending to meet the amount required by NATO – 2% of a country’s GDP. Sweden’s proposed 2024 budget has nearly double the defense spending compared to its 2020 budget. In December 2023, Sweden and the U.S. also signed an agreement setting conditions under which U.S. troops can operate in Sweden.
After the warnings were issued, the Swedish civil contingencies agency, also known as MSB, said there was a 3,500% increase in visits to the agency's online bomb shelter map and a 900% increase in downloads of a pamphlet called “If crisis or war comes.”
A Swedish children’s rights organization, Bris, said that as videos of the top defense officials’ warning of war began circulating on TikTok, they experienced an uptick in calls to their mental health hotline.
“They should have provided information meant for kids when they come out with this kind of information for grown-ups,” Bris spokesperson Maja Dahl told the BBC.
In response to criticism over the warnings, Bydén said, “My ambition with this is not to worry people; my ambition is to get more people to think about their own situation and their own responsibilities.”
Russia was also critical of the warning. Its embassy in Sweden wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, “Perhaps the Swedish leadership should stop driving its own people towards paranoia?”
In the summer of 2023, Sweden accused Russia of backing a disinformation campaign meant to hurt the country’s image as it sought NATO membership.
Mark Galeotti, a senior associate fellow at the London-based Royal United Services Institute, told AFP that Russia targeting Sweden doesn’t seem likely.
“I understand that military structures have to think about worst case scenarios,” he said. “And Russia has demonstrated it to be more viciously aggressive than we had frankly anticipated. That said, I have to confess I'm skeptical about the odds of any kind of scenario like that emerging.”
Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.
In short: Over 90% of the world’s traded goods are transported by ship, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, but the conflict in the Red Sea and a drought in the Panama Canal region are delaying ships or causing them to reroute. These disruptions have increased shipping costs, prompting fears of inflation. Rerouted ships must also travel farther distances, and some companies are switching to air shipments, both of which will increase the shipping industry’s already high greenhouse gas emissions.
Almost 15% of all global trade conducted by sea passes through the Red Sea, including 8% of all globally traded grain and 12% of all oil transported by ship, according to a joint statement from the U.S. and 13 other countries.
Since mid-November, the Yemen-based Houthis have been launching drone and missile attacks in the Red Sea in an effort to keep ships from delivering goods to Israel and force a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip.
Companies have responded by sending ships around the southern tip of Africa to avoid going through the Red Sea, which can add at least a week of travel time. In other instances, shipping companies have turned to air freight, which is usually more expensive and has less capacity when it comes to how much can be shipped per load.
Tesla and Volvo factories in Europe have already had to pause some production because the delays have caused a shortage of needed materials. Ikea has said that the delays could cause a shortage of certain products from the popular Swedish furniture company.
.png)
Sea-Intelligence, a supply chain advisory firm, said the effect on weekly shipping capacity caused by the conflict in the Red Sea is “even larger than the early pandemic impact.”
A coalition of countries, led by the U.S., was formed in late 2023 to protect shipping routes in the Red Sea, but countries have been hesitant to join, and the Houthis have warned that any country involved in the coalition will be targeted.
The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.
After delivering a series of warnings that went ignored, the U.S. and U.K. launched a strike in Yemen early on Jan. 12 local time. The U.S. struck Houthi targets for the sixth time on Jan. 19, then the U.S. and U.K. struck Houthi targets in Yemen again on Jan. 22.
A spokesperson for the Houthis told Al Jazeera the group will not stop attacking shipping routes, even amid U.S. attacks on Houthi targets. As of Jan. 19, Reuters reported that the Houthis don’t plan to expand their attacks beyond preventing ships from getting to Israel and retaliating in response to U.S. and U.K. attacks.
.png)
Due to severe drought in the region, authorities recently cut the number of ships allowed to pass through the Panama Canal by 36%. As of Jan. 18, the wait time for a ship wanting to get through the canal was anywhere from two to 55 days, depending on the type of ship and whether it was northbound or southbound, according to global port agency WaterFront Maritime Services.
The delay has caused some shipping companies to reroute through the Suez Canal, which has also become difficult to pass through due to the Houthis’ attacks in the Red Sea. CNBC reported that so far, 90% of container ships going to the Suez Canal have been rerouted.
Increasingly longer routes and delays could also cause a shortage of shipping containers, prompting what’s known as a “container crunch,” which could lead to even more delays.
Extended routes and delayed shipping can cause increased consumer prices and risk of harm to the environment.
As a result of the conflict in the Red Sea and the drought in the Panama Canal, shipping costs are rising, and with shipments delayed, there are fears that oil and retail prices could increase. Oil prices are already increasing and retailers are stocking up on their product in an attempt to avoid shortages.
Longer shipping routes could also have negative environmental impacts. Prior to these reroutes, the shipping industry was responsible for 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, World Bank economist Dominik Englert said on the organization’s infrastructure podcast, “Tell Me How.” Englert specializes in sustainable shipping.
“If shipping was a country, it would be the sixth largest greenhouse gas emitter worldwide, ranking between Japan and Germany,” he said.
Many ships that go from Asia to Europe are being rerouted around the southern tip of Africa, emitting more carbon dioxide along the way. For example, a ship traveling from Shenzhen in southern China to Rotterdam in the Netherlands adds over 3,000 nautical miles to its trip when it reroutes around the Cape of Good Hope, increasing carbon dioxide emissions by about 14,000 metric tons, according to Reuters’ global energy transition columnist Gavin Maguire.
Ships are also going faster to account for the time lost during the longer journey, Maguire writes, which also increases emissions. A switch to air freight also drastically increases emissions.
A 2014 study found that a plane carrying the same amount of product for the same distance as a boat emitted 44 times more carbon dioxide equivalent, a unit used to compare greenhouse gas emissions, than the boat. Air freight also has less capacity compared to shipping by boat, meaning more planes will need to take off in order to transport the same amount of product, emitting even more carbon dioxide.
Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.
In short: South Africa presented its genocide case against Israel last week at the International Court of Justice, and Israel defended itself against the charges. The ICJ is now considering whether to approve provisional measures that would immediately order Israel to stop all military operations in the Gaza Strip while the broader case is being decided, which could take years. South Africa’s case is only the fifth to use a United Nations genocide law since the law's inception.
In 1948, the U.N. General Assembly approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which went into effect in 1951.
“The genocide convention was written in 1948, and it basically codified what happened in the Holocaust” as a crime, said Leila Sadat, special adviser on crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court prosecutor, in a panel discussion at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
The law outlined and defined genocide as any of these acts committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group”:
The convention also made criminal the conspiracy to commit genocide, incitement to commit genocide, attempted genocide, and complicity in genocide.
“The genocide convention was adopted and had great fanfare, and then sat on the shelf,” said Sadat. “It sat on the shelf for 50 years. In the criminal sense, [it was] never used.”
Including South Africa’s case against Israel, there have been five cases of a country bringing charges against another using the genocide convention.
South Africa’s case against Israel is only the second genocide case brought to the ICJ by a country not involved in the conflict the case is about. There are hopes that Gambia’s precedent-setting case against Myanmar and now South Africa’s case against Israel will encourage more countries to file cases with the ICJ during future atrocities.
The first two uses of the convention were in relation to the violent breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The first was in 1993, when the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina brought a case against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, alleging that agents of the Federal Republic (Serbia and Montenegro) were committing genocide against Bosnian Muslims in violation of the convention. The ICJ decided in 2007 that the Republic of Serbia had violated the genocide convention by failing to prevent a 1995 genocide of Bosnian Muslims and that Serbia had also failed to punish the perpetrators of said genocide.
Croatia also brought a genocide charge against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999, claiming it was liable for the ethnic cleansing of Croatian citizens. In response, the Republic of Serbia filed a counterclaim accusing Croatia of being responsible for genocide against Serbs who were in Croatia. In 2015, the court decided neither country had committed genocide against the other.
The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.
In 2019, Gambia brought a case against Myanmar, alleging that it was committing genocide against the Rohingya, a majority-Muslim ethnic group that lives in Myanmar. This case, which is still making its way through the ICJ, set the precedent that a country not directly involved in or affected by a conflict could still bring a genocide case to the ICJ.
Lastly, in 2022, Ukraine brought a case to the ICJ alleging Russia misused the genocide convention to justify its invasion of Ukraine. Russia said Ukraine was committing acts of genocide in two Ukrainian regions that proclaimed independence from Ukraine, which Russia – but not the broader international community – recognized. Russia refused to appear at the ICJ hearings, and the court approved provisional measures that ordered Russia to stop all military operations in Ukraine.
According to South Africa’s application to the ICJ asking it to hear the case, Israel’s actions against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack are in breach of the 1948 U.N. genocide convention.
The day after South Africa presented its case to the ICJ on Jan. 11, Israel defended itself before the court. Israel largely focused on Oct. 7, when Hamas launched an attack against Israel, killing about 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, and taking more than 200 hostages.
In response to the attack, Israel launched a “complete siege” on Gaza that has killed at least 24,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, waging “the deadliest and most destructive” military campaign in recent history, the Associated Press reported.
Israeli legal adviser Tal Becker told the court that South Africa’s requested provisional measures are an attempt to stop Israel from defending itself against Hamas. South Africa requested provisional measures that include an end to any Israeli military operations in Gaza for the duration of the case.
The Associated Press noted, “Even when acting in self-defense, countries are required by international law to follow the rules of war, and judges must decide if Israel has.”
Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.
In short: South Africa presented its genocide case against Israel this week at the International Court of Justice, which handles disputes between countries. The International Criminal Court, which prosecutes individuals for international crimes, has been investigating potential crimes committed in the Palestinian territories since 2021, including those committed by Hamas militants and Israeli military members during the Israel-Hamas war.
Based in The Hague in the Netherlands, the ICC began operating in 2002. The court investigates and prosecutes those responsible for major international offenses, specifically genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression.
The ICC is composed of a prosecutor’s office and a bench of 18 judges. If an individual is convicted by the court, the ICC can impose punishments of up to life imprisonment.
The ICC has heard 31 cases since its founding, and there have been 10 convictions.
Depending on circumstances including where an alleged crime was committed and where the perpetrator is from, the ICC could charge both Hamas militants and Israeli military members.
ICC jurisdiction only applies to countries that have agreed to participate in the court. Currently, 123 countries are signed on to the ICC’s establishing statute; Israel did not sign on, the State of Palestine did as a non-member observer state recognized by the U.N.
The ICC is also able to prosecute members of a non-state group – such as Hamas – for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, said Leila Sadat, special adviser on crimes against humanity to the ICC prosecutor, at a panel discussion at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. If non-state actors commit a crime on ICC country territory, the court automatically has jurisdiction. If a non-state party commits a crime on non-ICC country territory, the United Nations Security Council must refer those non-state groups to the ICC.
Because the State of Palestine is signed on to the ICC, the court has jurisdiction over all Palestinian nationals.
The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.
“Most states see the ICC as a shield,” Sadat said. “They’re trying to protect their territory, and when they join the court, they make a commitment that their nationals will not commit ICC crimes. So, leaders of Hamas, as Palestinian nationals, are nonetheless within the sort of jurisdiction, subject-matter-wise, of the court.”
However, if the ICC charges Hamas members who aren’t within an ICC country, it will be difficult to get them into custody as the court relies on states to arrest those at large. The ICC has no police force of its own, Sadat said.
There are Hamas members currently operating outside of the Palestinian territories, primarily in three countries that don’t recognize the ICC: Lebanon, Qatar, and Egypt.
Israel does not recognize the ICC, so Israeli nationals are not under its jurisdiction unless they commit a crime in a place that does recognize the ICC. This means that Israeli military members could be charged by the ICC for any alleged crimes in the Palestinian territories.
In 2021, at the State of Palestine’s request, the ICC opened an investigation into potential crimes committed in the Palestinian territories from 2014 – when a conflict between Hamas and Israel caused “unprecedented” devastation in Gaza – onward. Alleged crimes committed during the most recent Israel-Hamas war are included in that investigation.
In November 2023, the Israel-Hamas war prompted five countries to ask the ICC to investigate the situation in the Palestinian territories. ICC prosecutor Karim Khan has said the 2021 investigation includes the events that have occurred since early October.
Hamas launched an attack against Israel on Oct. 7, killing about 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, and taking more than 200 hostages. In response, Israel launched a “complete siege” on Gaza, killing at least 23,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, and waging “the deadliest and most destructive” military campaign in recent history, the Associated Press reported.
In December 2023, after visiting Israel and the West Bank, Khan said investigating potential crimes by Hamas militants and Israeli military members in the recent conflict was a “priority” for his office.
Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.
In short: South Africa is presenting its genocide case against Israel this week at the International Court of Justice, the main judicial body of the United Nations. While it could take years for the ICJ to issue a ruling on the case, South Africa is asking the court to implement provisional measures that include ordering Israel to stop military actions in the Gaza Strip while the case is being determined.
Provisional measures are temporary orders that call upon warring states to stop what they’re doing to prevent possible “irreparable harm” from occurring while the court is deciding on the merits of the case, according to Leila Sadat, the special adviser on crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court prosecutor.
Sadat noted in a panel discussion at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that provisional measures are not a ruling on the merits of a case. Specifically in the case being heard against Israel, the granting of a provisional measure would not be “an adjudication of genocide.” It would be more similar to the court issuing a restraining order for the duration of a case.
South Africa is requesting nine provisional measures be brought into effect, most notably that Israel suspend any military operations in or against Gaza.
Sadat said that there is pressure on the ICJ to rule on the requested measures within two months, because in the most recent genocide case that came before the ICJ – between Ukraine and Russia – the court approved Ukraine’s requested provisional measures in 18 days. It was a “lightning speed” decision in the world of international courts, Sadat said.
That said, one significant difference between Ukraine’s case against Russia and South Africa’s case against Israel, is that Russia declined to appear before the court to defend itself. Israel is participating in ICJ proceedings and presenting its defense this week, including against the implementation of any provisional measures.
The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.
According to South Africa’s application to the ICJ asking it to hear the case, Israel’s actions against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack are in breach of a 1948 U.N. convention that defines and outlines genocide as a crime.
According to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, the term was first used in 1944 by a Polish Jewish lawyer in reference to the actions of the Nazis. The United Nations made genocide an international crime in 1948 and outlined it as certain acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
South Africa says Israel’s actions are “genocidal in character” because they are “intended to bring about the destruction” of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
Among its evidence, South Africa includes the death toll, at the time of filing the case, of over 21,000 Palestinians and widespread food insecurity across Gaza. It’s estimated that between Dec. 8, 2023, and Feb. 7, 2024, all of Gaza’s 2.2 million residents will be considered in “crisis or worse” by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, a scale used by governments and international organizations to analyze food insecurity.
As South Africa presented its case to the ICJ on Jan. 11, the Israeli Foreign Ministry said it was witnessing “one of the greatest shows of hypocrisy in history and a series of baseless and false claims,” according to Reuters.
On Oct. 7, Hamas launched an attack against Israel, killing about 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, and taking more than 200 hostages. In response, Israel launched a “complete siege” on Gaza, killing at least 23,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, and waging “the deadliest and most destructive” military campaign in recent history, the Associated Press reported.
Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.
In short: Taiwan’s Jan. 13 presidential election could decide the course of the self-governed island’s relationship with China, which claims it as part of its territory. At least a quarter of Taiwan’s eligible voters are between 20 and 40 years old, a group that overwhelmingly supports an independent Taiwan. Taiwan has accused China of attempting to intimidate voters ahead of the election.
At least a quarter of Taiwan’s eligible voters are between 20 and 40 years old, including just over 1 million first-time voters between the ages of 20 and 23. According to recent polling, young Taiwanese people overwhelmingly support an independent Taiwan and are less likely to support economic relations between Taiwan and China.
With young people making up such a large part of the electorate, it’s expected their vote will play an important role in the election’s outcome.
But young Taiwanese activists who talked with Focus Taiwan said that how young people will vote depends on whether they believe a candidate will make their lives better, especially when it comes to wages, housing costs, and relations with China.
Among young Taiwanese voters’ chief concerns is the economy, which grew by just 1.61% in 2023. Young voters say wages aren’t keeping up with the cost of living. The minimum wage in Taiwan was recently raised to $5.72 per hour, or for those on a monthly wage, to $859 per month, about a 4% increase for both. Meanwhile, rent prices are at their highest in nearly three decades.
Candidates must also motivate young people enough to travel to cast their vote, these same activists said.
Taiwan does not have an electronic voter system or allow for absentee voting, so people must cast their vote according to their “household registration.” For many young people, that means returning to their hometown.
Unlike in the U.S., where a voter 18 or older who’s away from home could either cast an absentee ballot or register to vote in their college town, Taiwanese voters are automatically registered at 20 years old based on their legally designated household. So, a 20-year-old Taiwanese student who lives on campus miles away would have to travel to their hometown to cast their vote.
Despite voting challenges, Taiwan has a comparatively high voter turnout compared to the U.S. In the Taiwanese 2020 presidential election, 74.9% of registered voters cast their vote. Compare this with the U.S. 2020 presidential election, which had a 66.8% turnout rate, the country’s highest voter turnout of the century.
In an interview with CNN, 26-year-old student Carrie Wang said, “For me, I think it is most important to choose a president who can best move our country forward in the international world.”
Along with the huge number of first-time voters expected to turn out, this election is important because it could affect Taiwan’s relationship with China, which has been increasingly aggressive in the South China Sea, which both countries claim as their territory.
The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.
In November, a Chinese official and director of the State Council’s Taiwan Affairs Office referred to the upcoming vote as “a choice between war and peace, prosperity and decline,” a sentiment later repeated by the head of China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, Zhang Zhijun, in a New Year’s message.
Three presidential candidates are on the ballot. From Taiwan’s two major parties, there is current Vice President Lai Ching-te of the Democratic Progressive Party and New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-ih of the Kuomintang, also known as the Nationalist Party. There is also a third-party candidate: Ko Wen-je from the Taiwan People’s Party.
The DPP currently holds the presidency and supports an independent Taiwan. The KMT opposes independence and believes in the so-called 1992 Consensus, an agreement made between Chinese and KMT officials that acknowledged Taiwan and China as part of “one China,” with each side allowed to interpret what that China is. Taiwan’s current president, Tsai Ing-wen, has rejected the consensus.
Since Tsai came into power in 2016, China has refused nearly all communication with Taiwan because of the DPP government’s rejection of the “one China” principle. China said Taiwan would need to concede its sovereignty before reengaging.
The DPP’s Lai, the current frontrunner, said he is open to reengaging with China “under the principles of equality and dignity.” Lai has also said that he would build up Taiwan’s defense capabilities and strengthen relationships with other democracies.
KMT candidate Hou said he opposes Taiwanese independence but would protect Taiwan’s free democracy while working with China under the “one China” policy.
TPP candidate Ko, a surgeon and former mayor of Taipei, likened the relationship between China and Taiwan to that of a tumor that should be managed but largely left alone.
The U.S. has maintained a delicate balance; it does not officially recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation – which would stoke tensions with China – but has an agreement with Taiwan that requires that the U.S. provide the island with defensive military equipment.
China considers Taiwan, which has been self-ruled for nearly 75 years and a democracy since 1996, to be a “breakaway province that will eventually be under Beijing’s control.” This is because in 1949, after fighting between the Chinese Communist Party and the KMT, the KMT fled to Taiwan and claimed Taipei was China’s temporary capital.
For two decades after 1949, international actors, including the U.S. and the U.N., considered Taiwan to be the official representation of China. But in 1971, the U.N. voted to admit mainland China and expel Taiwan.
In 1979, the U.S. recognized mainland China as the only government of China, and currently operates under a “one China” policy where it “recognizes Beijing as the government of China and maintains unofficial relations with Taiwan.” The U.S. holds the position that it does not support an independent Taiwan.
But the U.S. has had an agreement with Taiwan since 1979 that requires the U.S. to provide Taiwan with defensive military arms and to potentially come to Taiwan’s aid if any countries attacked it.
Taiwan’s defense minister, Chiu Kuo-cheng, said in February that China has been ramping up its efforts to control Taiwan following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Ahead of Taiwan's elections on Jan. 13, China has reaffirmed it would use military force to take control of Taiwan, threatened to put new trade regulations on Taiwanese goods, and launched high-altitude balloons over the island; China claims they’re just weather balloons, but others speculate they’re used for spying.
China also recently told the U.S. that it would “never compromise” on its claim that Taiwan is part of China.
Read next: The U.S. doesn't recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation, so why is it arming the island?
Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.
In short: Amid the Israel-Hamas war and increased tension in Middle Eastern countries, the U.S. has been using its diplomatic ties in the region to try to prevent an escalating conflict. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is touring the Middle East this week, where the U.S. has official relationships with nearly every country. Israel, a close U.S. ally, has official ties with only five.
Blinken is visiting with leaders in the Middle East and Europe to try to ease tensions and prevent a regional war. Blinken’s travels will include stops in Turkey, Greece, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the West Bank, and Egypt.
According to the U.S. State Department, the Middle East (which, along with North Africa, it calls the Near East) consists of 18 countries and one non-nation, the Palestinian territories. The U.S. has official diplomatic relations with every Middle Eastern country except for two: Iran and Syria. The U.S. severed diplomatic ties with Iran in 1980 after Iranian students took over the U.S. embassy in 1979 and held over 50 Americans hostage. The U.S. cut official diplomatic ties with Syria in 2012 amid the Syrian civil war, although the U.S. continued humanitarian aid to the country.
Israel has official ties with five Middle Eastern and North African countries: Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates.
Three of those official relationships were established in 2020 with the signing of the Abraham Accords.
In 2020, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco signed the Abraham Accords, officially creating diplomatic relations between the three nations and Israel. The accords were considered progress in what’s called the “normalization” of relations between these countries, meaning that despite their differences, they maintain official relations with one another, even if they’re hostile.
Since the U.S. maintains more ties to Middle Eastern countries than Israel, the U.S. has served as a negotiator between Israel and other nations.
Blinken acknowledged Israel's "own efforts, over many years, to build much better connectivity and integration in the Middle East," and told the country's foreign minister during his visit, "I think there actually are real opportunities there," according to The New York Times.
The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.
Iran is only one of two countries in the Middle East with which the U.S. does not have an official relationship. The country backs multiple groups involved in rising regional tensions in the Middle East, including Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen.
Iran calls the network of groups it supports the “axis of resistance.” Recently, the Associated Press reported that the groups in this alliance, excluding Hamas, are ramping up attacks in the Middle East to make a continuation of the Israel-Hamas war a too costly endeavor for Israel and the U.S.
Most of the localized conflicts led by these groups “are really linked in some larger, overarching way to the main conflict, which is Iran on one side and the U.S. and Israel on the other,” NPR national security correspondent Greg Myre said on a Jan. 4 episode of Morning Edition.
Iran has also been strengthening its relationships with China and Russia, prompting concern among U.S. leaders.
Meanwhile, Lebanon-based Hezbollah has been fighting with Israel at the southern border of Lebanon. Most recently, an Israeli airstrike killed a Hezbollah commander, which is predicted to bring tensions even closer to a boiling point between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel has warned of “another war” with the group, which is of particular concern to the U.S., which has worked to maintain “close and cordial ties” with Lebanon since the withdrawal of troops in 1984 after Israel’s invasion in 1982.
A recent report from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency found that it would be hard for Israel to successfully fight both Hamas and Hezbollah with the resources it has, according to The Washington Post.
In the Red Sea, Houthis have been launching drone and missile attacks to keep ships from delivering goods to Israel. The U.S. leads a coalition of countries meant to protect shipping routes in the Red Sea, but the Houthis have warned that any country involved in the coalition will be targeted. China’s largest shipping company reportedly stopped traveling its route to Israel amid the increased tensions.
Israel has continued its bombardment of the Gaza Strip, which began on Oct. 7 following a Hamas-led attack against Israel that killed about 1,200 Israelis and captured more than 200 hostages. In response, Israel launched a “complete siege” on Gaza, including cutting off its access to food and electricity, and waging “the deadliest and most destructive” military campaign in recent history, the Associated Press reported.
Blinken will continue visiting with leaders in the region through Jan. 11.
In a meeting with the president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the State Department said Blinken “emphasized the importance of preventing further spread of the conflict and stressed continued U.S. commitment to securing lasting regional peace that ensures Israel’s security and advances the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.”
Last September, Israel announced it was “at the cusp” of starting official relations with Saudi Arabia. However, as Israel has continued military operations in the Gaza Strip, normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia has slowed given that one of the country’s demands for creating a relationship was progress toward the creation of a Palestinian state.
Any Israeli hopes for normalizing relations with other Middle Eastern countries soon are “off the table,” said Middle East Council on Global Affairs fellow Omar Rahman at the Doha Forum in December 2023.
Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.