[COLUMNIST] Breakthrough at last: The UN Security Council secures ceasefire resolution for Palestine but is it binding?

ON March 25, 2024, after years of deadlock and diplomatic impasse, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has finally achieved a breakthrough in the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with 32,943 Palestinians having lost their lives since the conflict erupted on 7 October 2023. In a historic move, the UNSC has adopted a Resolution 2728 on 25 March 2024 with a vote of 14 in favour, none against and one abstention from the United States, calling for a ceasefire in Palestine, marking a significant step towards ending the perpetual cycle of violence that has plagued the region for generations.

What makes this resolution particularly noteworthy is the absence of a familiar obstacle: the United States, which notably chose to abstain from exercising its veto power, allowing the resolution to pass unimpeded. This comes only after over 30 previous drafts were presented, each met with a veto, often at the insistence of the United States. The Resolution called for an immediate ceasefire during Ramadan, to be observed by all parties, aiming for a lasting cessation of hostilities and demanded the prompt release of all hostages, ensuring humanitarian access for their urgent needs. However, amidst these developments, a pertinent question arises: will Israel abide by the Resolution?

Does the UNSC Resolution Binding?

Resolutions adopted by the UNSC acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter are considered binding, as stipulated by Article 25 of the UN Charter. This crucial provision underscores the authority and enforceability of Security Council decisions aimed at addressing threats to international peace and security. Although the UNSC resolution is legally binding on the parties to the proceeding, if a country refuses to follow a binding resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council, it would be considered a violation of international law. In such cases, the UNSC may take further action, which could include diplomatic measures, economic sanctions, or, in extreme cases, the authorization of military force to enforce compliance with the resolution.

One notable example is Iraq’s refusal to comply with UNSC Resolutions related to disarmament in the 1990s, which ultimately led to military intervention by a coalition of countries in the Gulf War. In November 2002, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441, accusing Iraq of violating Resolution 687, offering a last chance for compliance with disarmament obligations and implementing a more rigorous inspection system to ensure complete disarmament.

The Ceasefire Resolution

Nonetheless, UNSC Resolution 2728 is deemed non-binding by the United States implying that it carries no real consequences for Israel's actions. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield emphasized that the resolution merely applies pressure on Hamas for the release of hostages, downplaying its significance. Moreover, White House National Security spokesman John Kirby echoed this sentiment asserting that the resolution does not alter US policy, which staunchly supports Israel. In essence, the United States will continue to provide military aid to Israel enabling its ongoing operations in Gaza where thousands have already perished, and infrastructure lies in ruins.

The statements from Israeli officials underscore the heightened tensions following the UN resolution and the US’ abstention. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s declaration signals an intent to intensify military operations, particularly in Rafah, despite international calls for a ceasefire. The cancellation of the planned meeting between Israeli cabinet members and White House representatives reflects the strained relations between Israel and the US over the Resolution. Additionally, Israel’s Foreign Minister, Israel Katz, reiterated the country’s commitment to ongoing military action until all hostages are released, emphasising the government’s determination to confront Hamas.

Conclusion

While the UNSC resolutions are legally binding, there have been instances where countries have refused to comply, leading to various consequences. In the case of Israel, as a staunch ally of the United States, its adherence to UN resolutions, particularly those concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a subject of contention. Despite the binding nature of these resolutions, Israel’s compliance has often been selective, influenced by political considerations and strategic alliances.

---

Nurul Azyani Zafirah Sabaruddin is a fourth year LL.B and Shariah student and Dr. Fareed Mohd Hassan is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Syariah and Law, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Dr. Aryuni Yuliantiningsih is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman, Indonesia and Belardo Prasetya Mega Jayae is a Lecturer, at the Faculty of Law, Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Indonesia

** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.

Read the latest news here