Nueva inercia internacional
The International Court of Justice has demanded that Israel halt its operations in southern Gaza. The ruling marked a historic moment for the court, which suggested that Israeli ground incursions and bombardments in densely populated areas could violate the international convention against genocide. Israel did not comply with the order and intensified the onslaught in both the south and the central regions of the country. In the subsequent weeks, civilian casualties mounted, with the most recent toll reporting at least 32 fatalities in Gaza, many of them children, following an attack on a United Nations school in Nuseirat. Tel Aviv argued that the site housed a Hamas base of operations.
The political response in Europe has been rapid. Spain announced that it would formally participate in the case opened at The Hague against Israel for alleged genocide. The country intends to submit a legal report prepared by its ministries’ legal services to support the court’s work. The political aim is twofold: to back the International Court and to press Israel to end the assault, which has claimed tens of thousands of lives, including thousands of children.
Commenting on the development, Alicia Cebada, a professor of International Law at the Carlos III University of Madrid, noted that the decision increases pressure on Israel and enhances the legitimacy of the case brought by South Africa. She added that Spain would provide opinions rooted in law to aid the court in its decision.
The opposition has described the move as electoral posturing, announced with solemnity by the foreign minister, a few days before European elections. The minister, however, has rejected such a reading, stating that the information was communicated after receiving a verbal briefing about weeks of ministry work on the topic.
Earlier, in a parliamentary setting, Spain signaled its consideration of joining the South African-led case at the ICJ. Diplomats and senior legal officials from the ministry have been involved in preparing the matter, with the international legal service led by a professor of international law guiding the process. This refers to ongoing work to align diplomatic efforts with international legal norms.
Spain thus became the first European nation to back the ICJ case, while Germany has appeared in defense of Israel before the high court. Other countries, including Colombia and Chile, have indicated steps in support of the court’s proceedings, and Ireland and Belgium are reported to be preparing similar moves.
Experts suggest that this is a coherent stance that reinforces the idea of respecting an international system grounded in rules. Observers argue that backing multilateral institutions strengthens the international order at a moment when support for multilateral approaches is tested by developments in the region and by global crises, such as the situation in Ukraine.
In recent days the leadership in Madrid has framed the position as consistent with protecting civilians and upholding the rule of law on the international stage. President of Spain has stated that defending civilians in one conflict while neglecting another would be incompatible, insisting that Spain stands on the right side of history as Gaza endures a grave humanitarian crisis. This rhetoric has been accompanied by calls for a broader, international effort to end the fighting.
Leaders from several major democracies joined a joint statement calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The document, signed by the Spanish prime minister alongside the leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and twelve other nations, framed the ceasefire as a necessary first step toward a durable peace. The signatories emphasized that halting the conflict is essential to create the political space needed for negotiations and a return to normal life for civilians trapped by the fighting.
The administration in Washington has shown a tougher stance toward the genocide case brought by South Africa at the ICJ and toward the request by the International Criminal Court for arrest warrants against Israel’s prime minister. Yet the temporary restraining order from the ICJ aligns with what President Biden has been pressing in recent weeks. However, critiques point to a hardening rhetoric from U.S. officials as part of broader political posturing yet argue that the current ICJ mandate could still influence the regional dynamic and pressure Tel Aviv to rethink its military strategy.
Some observers note that the Israeli foreign minister has avoided naming the investigation as genocide, arguing that such determinations lie with the Hague tribunal. This contrasts with statements from other government members who have described the actions in Gaza as genocidal. The prime minister has maintained that his government would accept any ruling by the ICJ if the court finds evidence of intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group. In that case, the government would implement the court’s decision and act accordingly.
As the legal process unfolds, the international community watches closely, weighing strategic interests, humanitarian concerns, and the practical implications for regional stability. The case at The Hague continues to attract global attention as diplomats seek a path toward accountability, a viable ceasefire, and a durable political settlement that might prevent further civilian suffering.