The votes, abstention & binding force

THE VOTES, THE ABSTENTION AND THE BINDING FORCE

International law has been described as the rules, processes, regulations, procedures that regulate how States relate one with another and other entities. By engaging in these relations these actors under international law create or make laws through treaties, international customs, general principles of law common to their legal systems and other means.

On 25th March 2024 after almost six months, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) finally passed a resolution on an immediate and lasting ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. The resolution “demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting and sustainable ceasefire, and also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs, and further demands that the parties comply with their obligations under international law in relation to all persons they detain”.

The kerfuffle that has underpinned this end can only be described as phenomenal. The UNSC made up of 15 members, 5 of which are permanent (UK, US, China, France and Russia) with 10 rotational members; Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, South Korea and Switzerland by  a vote of 14 States in  favour and 1 abstention successfully passed the resolution pursuant to article 25 of the UN Charter, which makes the resolutions of the Security Council BINDING on all States.

It is instructive to note that dealings within the international community have never been copacetic or trouble-free. It has led some critics to describe it as meretricious, laced with an indentation of anarchy. The resolution juxtaposed with earlier draft resolutions, employs a firmer position and is less ‘ambiguous’ than the first draft. It further leverages the month of Ramadan to cause a shift in the stance of Israel.

The permanent 5 (P5) members of the UNSC are clothed with an extra ‘layer’ of power; the veto power, and when exercised can halt any decisions not in alignment with their interests. An earlier draft of the resolution did not see the light of day as it was vetoed by the US who has been averse to the word ‘ceasefire’ and has maintained an unwavering support for its ally Israel.

Interestingly, a few weeks down the line, the US abstains from voting. This triggers many questions within the international community. Is this a signal indicating the US frustrations with Israel? Is this a strategy or a shift in foreign policy? Whichever way this is analysed, there definitely are interesting times ahead. The US spent a great deal of effort to have the text of the draft resolution amended, at its behest the word ‘lasting’ replaced ‘permanent’ much to the chagrin of Russia. Russia’s effort to restore the word ‘permanent’ was defeated by 11 votes to 3.

With the abstention of the US from voting, moving forward, will this impact the close relationship the two States have nursed over the years? The US attributes its abstention to certain key edits that were ignored, including requests to add a condemnation of Hamas which was not done, and it did not agree with everything in the resolution. Is this factual or a hint of its mounting frustrations with the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu?

Isarel contends that all members of the UNSC should have voted against this shameful resolution as it is biased against it. And has registered its protest by cancelling a planned visit to Washington DC., now what next??

Hamas however, has expressed its readiness to comply with the resolution and is preparing to release all hostages, while calling on the UNSC to exert pressure on Israel to induce its compliance with the resolution.

The passing of the resolution though, was welcomed with clapping and cheers from the chamber of the UNSC, which is a rare occurrence. It certainly signifies a clear, unequivocal, and united message on the need for States within the UN system to uphold the provisions of international humanitarian law.