The US president Donald Trump may be positioning himself as the only person capable of being the architect of what he terms an “everlasting peace” in Gaza, but the agreement he helped broker is fragile and deeply imperfect.
The ceasefire agreement has many recognised flaws with little real prospect of long-term success. Agreements concluded without the active participation of those most affected by the outcome are invariably problematic. And while the agreement has brought a welcome respite from the onslaught for the people of Gaza and allows for the delivery of urgent humanitarian aid, make no mistake: it also represents the most recent US assault on fundamental principles of international law.
The agreement includes no obligation to end Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. There is no proposal for a cessation of existing violations throughout the occupied territory or reparation for prior violations. On the contrary, Israel continues to expand existing illegal settlements. Nor should it be forgotten that at one stage, Trump was proposing that the US could take ownership of Gaza after the expulsion of its two million Palestinian inhabitants.
So while Trump may deserve some credit for pushing Binyamin Netanyahu and Hamas towards the negotiating table, that pressure should have been brought to bear on all the parties much sooner.
Man charged in relation to alleged sexual assault of young girl in Saggart, Dublin
Catherine Connolly is going to win. Heather Humphreys needs to be a better loser
Fine Gael’s ‘desperate’ and ‘nasty’ campaigning is turning off its own voters, say Opposition leaders
Irish farmer who left school at 13 now holds meetings with von der Leyen and Macron
And in the case of Ukraine – which is now coming under pressure to cede territory in order to secure a ceasefire – Vladimir Putin is in a much better position to resist than Netanyahu. (It is still not clear if the Russian leader has something on Trump that gives him additional leverage.)
The US president’s capricious nature and capacity to change his mind add to the overall uncertainty.
This new world order, with Trump at its fulcrum, constitutes a dangerous repudiation of long-established norms that were the foundation of the post-second World War international order. The United Nations-led international system is under sustained attack like never before, leaving the organisation seriously underfunded and overstretched.
Trump has threatened to forcibly take Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal, and he seems comfortable with wars of conquest. His projection of military power contrary to the principles restraining the use of force under the UN charter poses a serious threat to world peace.
The consequences of the undermining of the prohibition against the use of force are already evident. We are living in a chaotic and volatile world, where might is right, and there is increased global spending on arms, accompanied by fractious international relations and trade.
Where does that leave the European Union and other western powers?
States are far less likely to act in concert with each other based on a shared set of values than they once were. Multilateralism is critical to peaceful coexistence. There are a growing number of issues that require co-operation and a global response. And yet the multilateral system established with the founding of the UN and other organisations is unravelling.
The EU needs to ensure that it is central to all future discussions on Gaza and Ukraine. The issues of justice and accountability should not be conveniently ignored
Last year, the UN International Court of Justice delivered its landmark advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The court found that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful, and that Israel must bring this unlawful presence to an end as rapidly as possible. The court also set out detailed obligations for third states.
The impact of the Trump administration here cannot be overstated. While in the past, the US could be accused of selectively invoking international law, it is now openly hostile to international norms and institutions. In a crude effort to shield Israel’s leaders from accountability, the US administration has undertaken an all-out assault on the International Criminal Court, imposing draconian targeted sanctions on some of its key personnel, a UN special rapporteur and internationally respected non-governmental organisations which it has accused of aiding the court’s investigation into crimes in Gaza.
The work of the court itself was deemed by Trump an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the US, and declared a national emergency. Sanctions on the court as a whole will make it very difficult for it to function. Thus far, the EU and states party to the Rome Statute establishing the court have failed to shield it from these attacks.
The EU and middle-power states must not shirk their responsibility to defend international institutions and challenge those that deny the existence and relevance of international law. Power may shield perpetrators and their allies from accountability in the current political climate, but that does not change the law and the implications if violated.
Despite foot-dragging on issues such as the Occupied Territories Bill, Ireland has consistently advocated for multilateral approaches to crises based on international law.
There are some glimmers of hope. Although often frustrated and slow to progress, there has been significant transnational legal and investigative co-operation in response to serious violations in Syria, Ukraine and Gaza. Even the fact that states are bringing cases before international courts that do not directly affect their own national interests is itself an important development. Nevertheless, the backlash from powerful states such as the US cannot be ignored.
The EU needs to ensure that it is central to all future discussions on Gaza and Ukraine. The issues of justice and accountability should not be conveniently ignored. Many states with potential leverage over Israel’s conduct have continued with business as usual. Violence will not stop so long as the injustice continues and the foundations of the regime that controls Palestinian lives is treated as legitimate.
In the absence of any apparent intention on the part of Israel to bring its unlawful occupation of Palestinian territories to an end, states need to take immediate steps to implement the findings of the International Court of Justice. This must focus on preventing further violations of international law by Israel, supporting the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and upholding the principles of international law.
Ray Murphy is a professor at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, University of Galway
