Despite the majority of nations in the global north having ratified the Genocide Convention, a significant number of them delay recognition and response to genocides, cautioned Sir Geoffrey Nice, a prominent British barrister known for his pivotal role in prosecuting former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic.

Speaking about the significance of the Genocide Convention, which mandates immediate action from ratifying countries, Sir Geoffrey Nice said that despite the urgency required in such matters, numerous nations, including the UK and the United States, find ways to evade prompt action, resulting in instances where genocides were not prevented.

“The Genocide Convention mandates all participating parties, whether they have exceeded or ratified it, by their commitments in Article One, to take action to prevent and punish the vital scourge of genocide,” said Sir Geoffrey, who served with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) from 1998 to 2006.

The barrister clarified that, based on the Bosnia-Serbia case at the International Court of Justice, the obligation to take action is immediate. “Not today, not tomorrow, not next week, immediate, and for the very good reason that experience as well as knowledge show that genocides don't normally stop themselves; they will only stop with external intervention.”

“In general, there have been a number of very clear genocides over the last 70 years, Cambodia, Rwanda and Bosnia again, Darfur, Pakistan, Bangladesh, for example, lots of genocides for people to consider. Why have they avoided looking away from their responsibility?”

Lauding South Africa's actions as the sole petitioner against Israel, considering its own history of apartheid-related sanctions, he noted that countries, particularly those that qualify as developed nations, have failed to recognize and act on genocides due to various reasons, including trade interests.

Shedding light on the rare occurrences where countries uphold their obligation to prevent genocide, Sir Geoffrey commented: “Since the establishment of the Genocide Convention in 1952, and subsequent ratifications by individual countries, a duty has been imposed on nations to act immediately to prevent genocide. However, there has been a noticeable lack of compliance with this duty.” An exception to this trend, the legal expert highlighted, was Gambia, which brought Myanmar to the International Court of Justice with a primary motivation focused on humanity's well-being. Recently, South Africa has similarly deviated from the norm, taking legal action against Israel at the UN court.

Acknowledging the historical tensions in the ongoing Gaza conflict and the potential for genocidal expressions, Sir Geoffrey expressed caution in labeling either side as genocidal initially but highlighted concerns about statements made from both sides (Hamas and Israel).

Initially, he said, there was a stage where both Israel and Hamas could be criticized for their use of military force. However, as the conflict unfolded, the extreme measures taken by Israel, coupled with statements from Israeli leaders, led the ICJ court to find evidence that could amount to genocide. In its ruling last month, the top UN court in The Hague ordered Israel to take action to prevent acts of genocide, especially in its conflict with Hamas in Gaza. The court emphasized the need for Israel to do more to protect civilians but stopped short of calling for an immediate ceasefire.

The former top ICTY prosecutor expressed hope that the UN court’s ruling would make Israel more moderate in its use of military force. However, he clarified that the ICJlacks the power to enforce a ceasefire, as it requires agreement from both parties involved.“The compliance with the ICJ’s orders would depend on the willingness of the parties involved,” he explained.

If nothing, Sir Geoffrey pointed out that the recent UN court’s ruling will make Israel more moderate in its use of military force. While the long-term impact of the recent ICJ ruling on the region remains uncertain, he underscored the need for a two-state solution actively supported by countries to avoid further conflicts.With the Palestinian death toll surpassing 27,000 and Israeli hostages still held by Hamas, the ICJ ruling is expected to result in minimal changes on the ground.

On the long term consequences of the UN court’s ruling on the region and the conflict, the British barrister said: “It could affect how governments, especially Western countries, deal with Israel in terms of arms supply and other interactions.”

When questioned about potential consequences for countries like Israel that repeatedly defy ICJ orders, Sir Geoffrey Nice suggested considering whether such nations should maintain their membership in the ICJ.

In response to a question about Israel potentially facing trial at the International Criminal Court, the former ICTY prosecutor explained, “Both the United States and Great Britain don't want Israel to be investigated by the other court, which we're all concerned with, the International Criminal Court, which would look to hold individuals from Israel responsible for any crimes committed by them on the territory of Palestine.”