Emilio Dabed on the role of the international legal order in administering violence
The recent escalation of violence in Gaza has laid bare the glaring paradoxes of the international legal order. Despite significant cases before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), the systemic failure to halt Israel’s alleged genocide against Palestinians persists. This stark reality invites a critical examination of international law itself, particularly its role in perpetuating and administering, rather than preventing, violence.
International Law's True Purpose
In a recent article published on +972 Magazine, Emilio Dabed, a Palestinian-Chilean lawyer and founding member of the Legal Centre for Palestine, argues that international law is fundamentally misunderstood. The widespread belief that its primary objective is to eradicate violence is a misconception. Instead, he argues, international law was constructed to administer and legitimize violence within imperial and colonial frameworks.
The seeming impotence of international legal mechanisms in Gaza is not due to a failure of the system. Rather, it is the intended outcome of a legal order designed to administer violence in a way that serves imperial and colonial interests. The genocide of Palestinians continues unabated because the system functions precisely as it was intended to.
Families salvage what they can from the rubble of their home in Gaza. Photo courtesy of Palestinian News & Information Agency (Wafa) in contract with APAimages
The ICJ and Gaza: A Primary example of administration of violence
The ICJ’s decisions regarding South Africa’s genocide case against Israel illustrate this troubling dynamic. On January 26th, the court issued provisional measures recognizing the plausibility of Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza. However, it stopped short of ordering an immediate ceasefire, opting instead to direct Israel to avoid acts of genocide and allow humanitarian aid.
This decision, Dabed argues, is legally flawed and politically obscene. By failing to mandate a ceasefire, the court effectively facilitated the continuation of genocide. The subsequent legal and bureaucratic debates about whether Israel is respecting the measures or not only serve to obfuscate and rationalize the ongoing violence.
The Administration of Violence
International law does not operate in a vacuum. It reflects and enforces the violence of imperial and colonial powers. This system defines what constitutes legitimate and illegitimate violence, who can defend themselves, and who must be criminalized. In doing so, it perpetuates a cycle of violence under the guise of legality and order.
The ICJ’s refusal to order a ceasefire in Gaza, despite the overwhelming evidence of genocide, underscores this point. The court’s legitimacy and authority are bound by the expectations and interests of Western powers, which historically and contemporaneously support Israel. This dynamic is not new. It is a continuation of the imperial and colonial logic that has long governed international relations and law.
“ ICJ itself is driven by the same power dynamics as the rest of the international legal system and that, wittingly or unwittingly, it participates in the administration and legitimization of imperial and colonial violence.” - Emilio Dabed
Implications for the Palestinian Struggle
For Palestinians, this reality poses serious questions about the role of international law in their struggle for justice and liberation. The legal order that many look to for protection and redress seems to be fundamentally compromised. It is an instrument of the very violence it purports to prevent.
This does not mean that international law should be wholly abandoned. Instead, there must be a critical and honest debate about its role in liberation struggles. Palestinians and their allies need to navigate its paradoxes and traps with a politically sound legal strategy.
Moving Forward
The Palestinian struggle must adapt to these realities. Advocacy efforts should continue to use international legal mechanisms where possible, but without illusions about their promises. The focus should be on integrating a robust critique of these institutions into advocacy strategies, holding them accountable for their role in perpetuating violence.
Moreover, there is a need for a broader political strategy that goes beyond legal avenues. This includes mobilizing international solidarity, engaging in grassroots activism, and pushing for political solutions that address the root causes of the conflict.
Emilio Dabed’s insights compel us to reevaluate our expectations of international law and recognize its complicity in maintaining the status quo. Only by doing so can we hope to transform a system designed to administer violence into one that genuinely promotes peace and justice.
