Gaza, Genocide, and the UN General Assembly (Part 1)

[Dr Jane Rooney is an associate professor in international law at Durham Law School, UK]

A new ceasefire between Israel and Hamas came into effect on 10 October 2025. This is the second ceasefire to be declared since the Hamas attack on Israeli civilians on 7 October 2023 which prompted the beginning of atrocities in Gaza. Israel has violated the ceasefire 497 times killing 342 civilians. Nearly 68,000 Palestinians have been killed since 7 October 2023 and many more wounded and displaced. The post ceasefire phase has been recognised by commentators as ‘slow genocide’.

The Israel/Hamas conflict has prompted me to reflect on the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and what it can do in the face of such grave atrocity crimes in Gaza and continued Israeli aggression. The UNGA took a primary role in coordinating Member State prior to the ceasefire. On Friday 12^th September, a total of 142 countries passed a resolution that supports the framework for a two-state solution on Israel and Palestine set out in the New York Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two State Solution. The UNGA facilitated the recognition of a Palestinian state, a very positive step forward. Numerous emergency special sessions were held pursuant to Resolution 377(V)(A) Uniting for Peace where states overwhelmingly voted to urge Israel to stop its aggression against Palestine and end the blockade. The UNGA should continue to take measures to protect civilians on the ground.

This contribution is provided in two parts. Part 1 reflects on the report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel (the COI report) which was published on 16^th September 2025. It found that genocide was being committed by Israel in Gaza. The commission of genocide had been recognised previously by amnesty international in December 2024 and the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) in August 2025, amongst other notable authorities. I explain the mandate of the COI on Israel and Palestine, providing an overview of findings, before considering its legal authority and the extent to which it can be relied upon to underpin and legitimise UNGA actions. Part 2 asks what action the UNGA should take in light of this report. Specifically, whether the UNGA has the legal authority and should recommend UN Member States to issue sanctions against Israel until it fully complies with the ceasefire agreement, and whether states following those recommendations can do so legally. 

Independent Commission of Inquiry Report 2025

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel (“the Commission”) was established on 27 May 2021 by the Human Rights Council. The report’s analysis is limited to the Palestinians specifically in Gaza since 7 October 2023, but it raises a serious concern that the specific intent to destroy Palestinians extends to the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, that is the West Bank including East Jerusalem. As defined in Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the actus reus of genocide was found present through the acts of (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. The mens rea of genocide intent is any of the acts outlined in Article II committed with the specific ‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such’. The Commission concluded that statements made by Israeli authorities constituted direct evidence of this intent, and that the pattern of conduct was circumstantial evidence of genocidal intent. 

It found that Israeli President Isaac Herzog, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and then Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, had incited the commission of genocide, prohibited under Article III(c) of the Genocide Convention, and that Israeli authorities had failed to take action against them, and recommended that the arrest warrants at the International Criminal Court should be amended to include the crime of genocide. It also recommended that Minister for National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Minister for Finance, Bezalel Smotrich should be assessed by the ICC within its continuing investigation into the situation in the state of Palestine. It concluded that the State of Israel bears responsibility for the failure to prevent genocide, the commission of genocide, and the failure to punish genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Authority of Independent Commission of Inquiry Report 2025 to Recognise Genocide

One argument presented as a reason not to formally recognise genocide in Gaza is that, it first needs to be confirmed by an independent judicial decision. For example, the UK Government has stated that it is for a competent court to determine if it is genocide, and is waiting on the completion of International Court of Justice (ICJ) case to confirm genocide. The Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, Strategy and Priorities 2023 – 2026 Report stipulates that the SAPG ‘cannot pronounce whether a genocide has occurred or is occurring and or make a determination if a particular situation amounts to genocide or other related crimes’. This is the mandate of judicial institutions with the relevant jurisdiction. Article IX Genocide Convention states that the ICJ has jurisdiction to decide upon disputes relating to the Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide.

There is a growing body of literature recognising Human Rights Council COI reports as authoritative statements of the application of law to a country specific context, with examples relating to the commission of genocide. Ramsden finds that COI reports have influenced the text of quasi-judicial resolutions of the UNGA and that this is a step in the right direction in the context of growing calls for a more robust General Assembly in responding to atrocity crimes when the Security Council fails to exercise its responsibilities under the UN Charter. UNGA quasi-judicial resolutions then influence judicial findings. The rise of COIs in UN practice provides a closer dialogue between their outputs and Assembly resolutions and bring a greater degree of objectivity and specificity to the text of UNGA resolutions that condemn violations of international law. 

Ramsden highlights the evidentiary weight placed upon Assembly quasi-judicial resolutions and the independent fact-finding conclusions that underpinned it in relation to state and ICJ recognition and responses to the genocide against the Rohingya in Myanmar. The evidence gathered by the UN Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar influenced the text of UNGA Resolution 73/264 (2018) wherein it expressed ‘grave concern’ at the COI’s findings that there ‘is sufficient information to warrant investigation and prosecution so that a competent court may determine liability of genocide in relation to the situation’. In Gambia v Myanmar, the ICJ drew on the COI reports and UNGA resolution 73/264 in its decision on provisional measures to support the finding that the Gambia had standing in this case. Ramsden notes that ‘[t]he ICJ’s generous use of Assembly resolutions here suggests some promise for COI-Assembly-ICJ dialogue in future cases, as part of a strategy to secure political and legal accountability’.

If there was an authentic motive on the part of member states of the UNGA to suppress genocide in Gaza, the authority and gravity of COI report in influencing ICJ decisions would be noted. The UNGA should put forward a resolution recognising the commission of genocide in Gaza as it has done so in the past following COI reports. This will feed into the ICJ litigation proceedings. However, by the time a judicial determination has been made, many more people will have fallen victim to the genocide. UNGA Member States should urgently collectively recognise genocide in a resolution as one step forward in mitigating human loss on the ground.

Part 2 considers what action the UNGA should take in light of this report: (i) whether the UNGA has the legal authority and should recommend UN Member States to issue sanctions against Israel until it fully complies with the ceasefire agreement, and (ii) whether states following those recommendations can do so legally.