The UN security council on Friday approved a toned-down resolution calling for large-scale delivery of aid to Gaza, but stopping short of a call for a ceasefire.
Will the new UN resolution on Gaza make any difference to conditions on the ground?
UN security council resolution 2720 will not stop the Israeli offensive, and does not seek to. It only calls for “urgent steps” to establish “conditions” for a sustainable ceasefire, which are open to interpretation. Israel believes those steps involve the complete destruction of Hamas. As for humanitarian deliveries, it depends. A UN special coordinator is to be appointed to orchestrate an increase in the flow of aid, and the resolution “demands” that concerned parties, ie Israel, give full cooperation. The precedents are not good however. Israel generally sees the UN as hostile and biased actor and recently revoked the visa of the resident UN coordinator for occupied Palestinian territories.
Does the UN resolution have the force of international law?
No. Only a small number of UN resolutions are considered legally binding. International lawyers do not always agree on what it takes to make a resolution binding, but there is general consensus that it should mention chapter VII of the UN charter which gives the security council the right to take military and nonmilitary action to confront a “threat to international peace and security”. The resolution should also say that the council “decides” on a course of action, rather than just calling for it.
Resolution 2720 fulfills none of those conditions, but some lawyers argue that by using the word “demand” the council is creating a legal obligation outside chapter VII. But Israel has broken more than two dozen prior security council resolutions, including many “demanding” it stop building settlements on the occupied West Bank.
What is the point of such resolutions then?
UN security council resolutions are often a form of political signaling about world opinion. For the chronically divided five permanent members to agree on anything is rare, so if they agree your country is doing something wrong, it is of note diplomatically. The process of hammering out a resolution can also be a vehicle for resolving differences between major powers. Friday’s resolution on Gaza carved out a small policy space which both the US and Russia could live with. The US has used UN resolutions in the past as a way of sending signals to Israel. When Washington, on rare occasions, abstains on a resolution critical of Israeli policy or upholding Palestinian rights, it is usually a message to Tel Aviv that the administration is running out of patience with whatever Israel is doing.
