South Africa And Malaysia Lead Push For Stronger Enforcement Of International Law At UN

South Africa and Malaysia have brought together foreign and justice ministers and senior diplomats from about 40 countries at the UN headquarters in New York to discuss stronger enforcement of international law. Participants proposed a new UN mechanism modelled on the former Special Committee against Apartheid, while also discussing efforts towards a Security Council arms embargo on Israel and measures to protect the International Criminal Court from sanctions and intimidation. The occupied Palestinian territory was highlighted as a major test of the international system, with the organisers calling for greater compliance with existing international legal obligations and stronger accountability.

SOUTH AFRICA AND MALAYSIA BRING 40 STATES TOGETHER

South Africa and Malaysia have convened a high-level meeting at the United Nations headquarters in New York, bringing together foreign and justice ministers and senior diplomats from about 40 countries to discuss ways of strengthening the enforcement of international law.
The meeting was co-sponsored by South Africa’s International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola and Malaysia’s Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan.
In a joint statement, the two ministers said the authority of international law depends not only on countries agreeing to legal principles but also on their willingness and ability to enforce them.
The meeting comes amid wider debates over the effectiveness of the international system, particularly when states or powerful actors are accused of violating international law without facing meaningful consequences.

CALL FOR A NEW UN MONITORING MECHANISM

One of the proposals discussed was the creation of a new United Nations mechanism to monitor countries’ compliance with international law.
The proposed body would be modelled on the former UN Special Committee against Apartheid, which was established in 1963 to monitor and support international action against South Africa’s apartheid system. The committee later became an important part of the international campaign against apartheid.
South Africa and Malaysia have not yet established such a mechanism. Rather, participants proposed it as an option for further consideration and consultation among participating states.
Malaysia has previously supported reviving a mechanism based on the Special Committee against Apartheid, including in discussions concerning international legal obligations relating to the occupied Palestinian territory.

PALESTINIAN TERRITORY DESCRIBED AS A TEST FOR THE SYSTEM

The meeting placed particular attention on the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.
The co-sponsors described the situation there as an urgent test of the international system, arguing that legal decisions and UN resolutions must be accompanied by practical measures to ensure compliance.
Their position refers in part to the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion concerning Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory.
In that opinion, the ICJ concluded that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory was unlawful and said Israel had an obligation to bring that presence to an end as rapidly as possible. The court also said all states were under an obligation not to recognise the situation arising from that presence as legal or assist in maintaining it.
The advisory opinion is not the same as a binding judgment between two states, and several judges issued separate opinions expressing different views on parts of the court’s reasoning and conclusions.

CALLS FOR AN ARMS EMBARGO ON ISRAEL

Participants also discussed continued efforts towards a United Nations Security Council arms embargo on Israel.
Such an embargo would require action by the Security Council and would therefore depend on the council’s members reaching the necessary agreement.
The proposal reflects broader disagreements within the international community over arms transfers to Israel and the responsibilities of states supplying military equipment during the conflict involving Israel and Palestinian armed groups.
South Africa and Malaysia have been among the countries advocating stronger international measures relating to the Palestinian issue.

PROTECTION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Another major issue discussed was the protection of the International Criminal Court, its judges and officials.
The participants proposed coordinated measures to protect the court from what they described as sanctions and intimidation.
The ICC has faced political pressure from several governments over investigations and proceedings involving senior officials from different countries.
Supporters of the court argue that judicial independence requires judges and officials to be able to carry out their work without political retaliation.
Critics of some ICC actions, meanwhile, have questioned the court’s jurisdiction and the political consequences of some of its investigations.
The meeting focused on protecting the functioning of international judicial institutions rather than resolving those wider disagreements.

THREE MAIN THEMES DOMINATE THE DISCUSSIONS

The discussions were organised around three broad themes.
The first was the need for a multilateral system that reflects what the participants described as sovereign equality among states.
The second was moving governments “from complicity to compliance” by encouraging states to fulfil legal obligations they have already accepted.
The third was shifting “from impunity to accountability” for individuals or governments accused of obstructing international courts and human rights institutions.
The language reflects the organisers’ argument that international law becomes weaker when states support legal principles in theory but fail to act when violations occur.

WHY ENFORCEMENT IS A MAJOR CHALLENGE

International law differs from domestic law because there is no single global government with the same enforcement powers that a national government has inside its territory.
The United Nations has several mechanisms for responding to violations, including the Security Council, General Assembly, international courts, sanctions regimes and peacekeeping operations.
However, their effectiveness can depend heavily on political agreement among member states.
The Security Council, in particular, has five permanent members with veto powers, meaning that any one of them can block a substantive resolution.
This has repeatedly created disagreements over how the international community should respond to major conflicts.

SOUTH AFRICA'S HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE SHAPES THE PROPOSAL

South Africa's role in the initiative is closely linked to its history.
The United Nations established the Special Committee against Apartheid in 1963, and the organisation later supported a range of international measures against South Africa's apartheid system, including an arms embargo that became mandatory in 1977.
The committee monitored developments, promoted international action and reported on countries and organisations involved in relations with the apartheid government.
The proposed new mechanism would therefore draw on an existing example of how the UN previously attempted to coordinate international pressure around a major legal and political issue.

THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION REMAINS CENTRAL

The meeting comes as international institutions continue to debate the legal and political consequences of the conflict involving Israel and the Palestinians.
The ICJ's 2024 advisory opinion remains an important reference point in those discussions. The court found, among other things, that Israel's continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory was unlawful and that Israel had obligations arising from that finding.
The court's opinion has since been cited by governments and international organisations in arguments over settlement activity, recognition, diplomatic relations and assistance connected to the occupied territory.
At the same time, Israel and its supporters have rejected or disputed aspects of international criticism and have raised security concerns relating to the conflict.

SOUTH AFRICA AND MALAYSIA SEEK WIDER SUPPORT

The organisers stressed that the enforcement of international law should not be treated as the responsibility of a single country.
They said the participating states would continue consultations on the proposals discussed in New York.
That means the suggested monitoring mechanism, Security Council arms embargo and measures relating to the ICC remain subjects for further diplomatic discussions rather than decisions that have already been adopted.
The challenge will be turning political support from participating governments into concrete measures through existing UN institutions.

A BROADER DEBATE OVER THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

The meeting reflects a wider debate over whether the international system can enforce the same legal standards across powerful and less powerful states.
South Africa and Malaysia argue that international law loses authority when violations do not result in meaningful consequences.
Their proposed approach would place greater emphasis on monitoring compliance, protecting international courts and coordinating action among states.
Whether the proposals gain wider support will depend on further negotiations among UN member states and, in areas requiring Security Council action, on the willingness of its permanent members to agree.
For now, the New York meeting has placed enforcement of international law back at the centre of a growing diplomatic debate over accountability, multilateralism and the future role of international institutions.