Falconpowers – Dr. Mohamed Mahmoud Mahran, an expert in public international law, commented on Egypt’s pleading against Israel at the International Court of Justice, stating that it marks the first confrontation between the two countries since the Taba case.
Egypt reveals details of its pleading against Israel at the International Court of Justice
Egyptian advisor Mohamed Mahran praised his country’s supportive stance towards the Palestinian cause at the International Court of Justice, affirming that Egypt’s memorandum and pleading reflect its serious position in ending the Israeli occupation.
Dr. Mahran emphasized in an exclusive statement to RT that Egypt’s delegation succeeded in clarifying the legal dimensions of the illegitimate occupation and the extent of Israeli violations against the Palestinian people, which contravene international law. He pointed out that this is the first direct confrontation between Egypt and Israel before the Hague court since the Taba case in the 1980s, reflecting Egypt’s commitment to exhausting all peaceful means to end the occupation and enable the Palestinian people to exercise their inalienable rights.
Mahran stated that Egypt’s position before the International Court of Justice is based on international law, which clearly prohibits the military occupation of territories by force.
The law professor explained that there is a fundamental difference between the current suit, in which the General Assembly requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice under Article 96 of the United Nations Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and the suit filed by South Africa against Israel on charges of genocide.
Mahran further elaborated that the first suit relates to a non-binding advisory opinion, whereas the second suit was a substantive legal claim in which the court issued binding interim measures against Israel. He added that despite the difference in nature, both paths ultimately aim to provide protection for the Palestinian people and put an end to Israeli violations through the mechanisms of international law.
He also noted that the advisory opinion to be issued by the International Court of Justice regarding the Israeli occupation, although not legally binding, will provide an important political and legal tool of pressure on Israel. He pointed out that Israel will certainly try to ignore the advisory opinion, but that will weaken its position and increase its international isolation.
Mahran further explained that the opinion will provide an important reference for Palestinians and supportive nations to exert further political pressure on Israel to end its unlawful policies.
