The central question is what international law has to say about the war in Gaza. Two Maastricht specialists - associate professor Fabián Raimondo and assistant professor Wim Muller - address this. What exactly do the "right to self-defense" and "right to self-determination" entail? Who or what has this right and when? What constitutes a state and what may or may not it do in times of war?And what is the difference between the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, both of which are dealing with this war?
Genocide?
The former is not attached to the UN and judges the actions of individual people; the latter belongs to the UN and judges the actions of states, Raimondo explains. For example, South Africa's recent accusation against Israel that it is committing genocide in Gaza, something that pro-Palestinian students in Maastricht repeatedly have claimed during demonstrations. Legally this is not so simple, Raimondo says: genocide is very difficult to prove. "You have to prove not only that members of a religious, national, ethnic or racial group were killed, but that they were killed in order to partially or completely destroy that group."
And those who aim to do so are not likely to leave evidence of that, Muller notes. While he sees people with "a genocidal mindset" on both sides of the conflict, "you have to be able to link their hate speech to specific acts." That also makes it difficult to classify Hamas' October 7, 2023 attack on Israel as genocidal, even though that group makes no secret of wanting to kill Jews. However, there were "certainly war crimes there and probably crimes against humanity," Muller believes. And those, too, Raimondo stresses, are serious crimes, which, moreover, are easier to prove.
Toothless tiger
Still, someone in the audience wonders: isn't international law ultimately a toothless tiger in a world where the law of the jungle prevails? Raimondo doesn't think so: the International Court of Justice handles more and more cases, and when there is a binding, final judgment, he says, states almost always comply. Muller agrees: "We are better off than 50 years ago, there is slow progress. Although that," he admits, "doesn't help people who are suffering now."