In an interview with the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations website, Kourosh Ahmadi said: The fresh ICJ order also calls on Israel, as a signatory to the Genocide Convention, to undertake those measures, “including by increasing the capacity and number of land crossing points and maintaining them open for as long as necessary.”

Also, the court stated that the Zionist regime must guarantee that its army does not violate the rights of the Palestinians, including that it does not prevent aid from reaching them.

In response to whether the court’s decisions are binding, Ahmadi explained: “In this regard, it should be noted that the decisions of the International Court of Justice are binding for the parties to the dispute and create rights; That is, the litigants are obliged to accept and implement the court rulings. But it is a problem that these votes and decisions are not guaranteed to be implemented.”

He added: That is, the situation is such that if a country does not implement the decisions, the ICJ does not have the means to oblige this country to implement the decisions. Of course, according to Article 41 of the Statute, the Court is obliged to notify the Security Council of its decisions and announce them to the litigants.

According to Ahmadi, if there is the necessary political will, the UNSC can implement binding decisions and guarantee the implementation of the Court’s decisions. Naturally, considering the Security Council’s inhomogeneous composition, such a possibility is weak.

The former diplomat emphasized that national sovereignty is a fundamental principle in international law. The national sovereignty of these political units, which built the international system, is the principle and basis of international law.

Pointing to the fact that a transnational organization could impose its views on a country is a very rare thing in international law; he explained: “The only exceptional case is the UN Security Council that can impose its decisions on countries by using the guarantee the United Nations Charter has given to the Council.” presents, imposes its decisions on the country. Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter have provisions for applying the decisions of the Security Council, which include sanctions and military action.

Ahmadi explained: “Therefore, virtually no transnational organization except the Security Council can implement its decisions, even though these are legally binding.”

This expert said: “The decisions of the International Court of Justice are also legally binding, but there is no implementation guarantee for them.”. The procedure in the Security Council is such that certain types of decisions and resolutions of this body are considered binding. In other words, the so-called resolutions under Chapter Six are recommendations and are not binding, although jurists differ in opinion regarding this matter.

Although the decisions made by international authorities, such as the ICJ, are not guaranteed to be implemented in most cases, they have a very high political weight and affect the legitimacy and image of political units, i.e., governments and their interests.

That is, a country that does not follow these decisions is considered a bad country from the international point of view. Therefore, countries with credit for themselves usually try not to be in a situation where international institutions decide against them, and they rebel and do not implement it.”

Ahmadi added: In other words, a country that does not follow these decisions will become a country with a bad record from the international point of view. “Usually, they try to put themselves in a position where international institutions decide against them and implement them and implement them.”

The former diplomat further emphasized that the recent verdict of the International Court of Justice regarding the crimes committed by the Israeli regime in the Gaza Strip also has had significant effects, especially political influence in shaping international public opinion.

He explained: “Public opinion is the main superpower in today’s world; Even great powers like America, Russia, and China face problems if they stand in front of public opinion. As we can see, the public opinion and politics of Europe and the United States have changed over the last three or four months from their initial unlimited support for the Israeli regime and have turned against it in an unprecedented way.”

They jump What can change the public opinion and the politics of Europe and the United States within three, four months of naming support for the Israeli regime, and continue to oppose it in an unprecedented way.”

According to Ahmadi, such a policy shift is largely due to the impact of domestic public opinion in countries and at the international level, on the one hand, and the decisions and statements of international organizations, on the other hand. Here, the rulings of the International Court of Justice and their provisional verdicts regarding the crimes of the Israeli regime in Gaza have had a significant impact on shaping international public opinion.

Ahmadi concluded: If we want to envision an end to the Gaza war, the pressure of public opinion and international organizations will probably be very effective on both sides, and all these factors will work hand in hand to create a flow and push the Israeli regime to ceasefire and end the war. In this regard, this regime has been wanting to attack Rafah for about two months. Still, the main reason is the pressure on Tel Aviv from the international order and public opinion, including Europe, the United States, and international organizations.”