It wouldn’t be misguided to assume that most have lost track of the number of failed UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. Time and time again, the five permanent (P5) members of the UNSC have vetoed one resolution after the other.
On March 25, the Security Council was able to adopt Resolution 2728 with 14 votes in favour and one abstention from the United States. The resolution calls for an immediate, yet temporary ceasefire in light of the month of Ramadan, one that the council hopes will eventually translate into lasting peace and a permanent ceasefire. Likewise, the resolution demands the immediate release of hostages and calls for greater flows of humanitarian aid across the Gaza Strip.
Though it is commendable that Resolution 2728 did not fall victim to the P5 veto powers, it is unlikely that the watered-down request for a temporary ceasefire lasting until April 9 will bring permanent peace to those in Palestine.
Notably, Resolution 2728 follows a failed U.S.-led draft resolution, vetoed by Russia and China, and critiqued by others in the UNSC, seen through the abstention of Guyana. Ambassador Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, the Permanent Representative for Guyana to the UN, drew several critiques to the U.S. draft resolution, especially as a lack of condemnation for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza prevailed in the proposed resolution.
“If one were to read this resolution without background knowledge, it would be difficult to ascertain which party in this conflict is committing the atrocities in Gaza… In a resolution of 41 paragraphs, 2036 words, the occupying power is mentioned once in the penultimate paragraph,” said Ambassador Rodrigues-Birkett at the UNSC.
Though the U.S. draft resolution failed to pass, the U.S. stance on a ceasefire in Gaza and Israel relations seems to have partially shifted, noted through their abstention, rather than veto usage, in the passing of UNSC Resolution 2728. Not long ago being Israel’s most eager advocate, vetoing three draft UNSC ceasefire resolutions, the U.S. has most recently softened its approach to ceasefire negotiations. The abstention vote delivered by U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield shows commitment to “some of the critical objectives in this nonbinding resolution.”
The U.S. Ambassador’s comment on the voting decision, while remaining concerned with the condemnation of Hamas and with the conditional release of hostages, also raised criticism for dismissing Resolution 2728 as “nonbinding”. This comment has come despite the language used within Resolution 2728 demanding a ceasefire, entailing a level of bindingness in the text.
The question of whether the resolution is binding is mainly relevant for compliance purposes and the steps to be pursued if a ceasefire is not achieved. A binding resolution in the Security Council provides different avenues of response. Under Article 41 of the UN Charter, the UNSC can respond through disruption of economic relations or severance of diplomatic relations with the member state violating the resolution. In the case Article 41 is deemed inadequate, Article 42 gives room for the use of force through air, sea or land.
Seeing as Israel has a track record of disregarding the binding nature of UNSC resolutions discussing its occupation of Palestinian territory without facing significant repercussions for it, the binding nature of UNSC 2728 is doubtful.
Other contraventions of international law, as seen through Israel’s violation of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) ruling on the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, indicate that UNSC 2728, as commendable of an effort as it was, will likely fall short in securing temporary or long-term peace for Palestinians.
