Ron Shapira: Israeli ICJ Judge Candidate Is Not Sufficiently Qualified

The selection of Israel as the new ad hoc judge in the South African genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) who is combative, relatively inexperienced and a supporter of Benjamin Netanyahu’s highly controversial judicial reforms has been controversially made by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Ron Shapira will replace Aharon Barak, who resigned last month due to “personal family reasons.”

In addition to the 15 judges sitting on the permanent panel, both parties to a case before the ICJ may designate a judge to participate in the deliberations.

In late January, the ICJ issued an interim ruling calling on Israel to take measures to prevent acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip.

Only two judges from the 17-member panel issued dissenting opinions: Barak and Ugandan judge Julia Sebutinde.

Shapira, who is set to replace Barak, is currently rector of the Peres Academic Center, a private university in central Israel, and a lecturer at Bar-Ilan and Tel Aviv universities.

He is also a member of the advisory board of the Israel Law and Liberty Forum, a right-wing organization that trains conservative judges and lawyers.

“MTS is not trustworthy”

Analysts have noted that Shapira’s judicial credentials fall short of those of Barak, a former attorney general who served on Israel’s Supreme Court for three decades, including 11 years as its president.

“While he may be highly talented in his specializations, he is nothing like Barak as a lawyer, especially among ICJ judges and other international lawyers,” Eitan Diamond of the Diakonia International Center for Humanitarian Law in Jerusalem told Middle East Eye.

“Barak is probably the most distinguished lawyer in Israel’s history and has extensive experience in adjudicating cases involving international law.”

Diamond added that Barak’s expertise, as well as elements of his biography (such as being a Holocaust survivor), could lend “additional weight to the broader legal and public discourse surrounding this case.”

“While he may be very talented in his field, his status is not even close to that of Barak”

– Eitan Diamond, Diakonia International Humanitarian Law Center

Meanwhile, Shapira has no experience in the international arena and is deeply critical of MTS.

In January, Shapira said Israel had sent Barak to serve as a judge in “a body that almost all Jewish residents of the State of Israel and its entire political leadership consider unworthy of any trust.”

Shapira continued: “The consensus in Israel is that this body exemplifies and amplifies all the flaws in legal discourse wherever it is found—intellectual dishonesty, manipulative use of ambiguous definitions, clumsy fact-checking and debunking tools, and the masking of judges’ outside interests with words that give a false impression of neutrality.”

For Diamond, Shapira’s nomination illustrates Israel’s approach to the case initiated by South Africa.

“By electing an ad hoc judge who is not an international lawyer and who has openly espoused hostility towards the ICJ, Israel has clearly given up any hope of influencing the court’s decisions in this case,” he said.

Diamond added that the decision, like other recent actions, meant Israel had demonstrated “a brazen disregard for and open defiance of the principles of international law.”

Supporter of judicial reform

Shapira is an outspoken practicing lawyer who frequently shares his thoughts on legal and political issues with his 869 Facebook followers and regularly appears in Israeli media.

The new judge has backed elements of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s judicial reform, which has sparked months of protests, a bill that most people see as a dismantling of Israeli democracy.

The aim of the reform was to give the government the power to appoint judges and allow a simple parliamentary majority to overturn Supreme Court judgments.

In an interview with Israel National News, Shapira said the country needs judicial reform.

“Almost nowhere else do courts have the power to overturn laws, and judicial appointments are not subject to the control of the political system,” he said.

“A judge (in Israel) is not elected by society, either directly or indirectly… This is not an accepted system in Western countries.”

Barak, meanwhile, has staunchly opposed Netanyahu’s judicial reforms, which have earned him praise from opposition circles and criticism from the far right. Since retiring, he has built a national reputation as a liberal judge and defender of democracy.

However, on the issue of crimes against Palestinians, Barak has long been accused of being a liberal during his time as head of the High Court who “whitewashed and legitimized” Israeli crimes.

These crimes include: sanctioning the construction of a wall separating Israel from the occupied West Bank, expropriation of Palestinian land for use by Israeli settlers, and targeted killings by the Israeli military.

“Perhaps it is not surprising that (Barak) voted at various stages of the South Africa v Israel case in a way that could have appeared politically biased and pro-Israel,” Christian Henderson, professor of international law at the University of Sussex, told MEE.

“It’s not clear yet whether Shapira will take a completely different position… but I imagine things will continue along the same lines as they did with Barak.”