In a controversial decision, Switzerland announced the cancellation of the international conference, which was scheduled for 7 March/ / March 2025 to discuss the implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the occupied Palestinian territories.
The cancellation has undergone the pretext of “the lack of sufficient support from countries” and the lack of international consensus, but diplomatic sources revealed that the decision was the result of the political pressure of certain countries, which raises questions on the neutrality of Switzerland and its commitment to the principles of international law, in particular in the light of continuous violations against the Padesinians.
The conference was supposed to focus on the implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1949, a basic treaty that protects civilians in time of war and occupation. Its importance lies in being a real opportunity for:
- Emphasizing the Israeli violations underway against the Palestinians.
- Search for ways to activate international sanctions against Israel; Due to its illegal policies.
- Provide recommendations to signed countries to take practical measures, such as the boycott of establishments or the restriction of military cooperation with Israel.
- Support international surveys on war crimes and the genocide which was raised before the International Court of Justice.
The cancellation of the conference does not reflect the simple diplomatic trip, but rather a serious weakening of the protection mechanisms of Palestinian civilians, and gives the Israeli occupation an additional space to continue its violations without responsibility.
In the light of this decision, questions increase on the capacity of the international community to impose respect for international humanitarian law and on the extent of the will of the States to join their legal responsibilities towards what is happening in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Why was Switzerland been chosen to conclude the Geneva conventions?
The Geneva Conventions were concluded in response to humanitarian atrocities in wars, in particular the two world wars, in order to set legal rules to protect civilians, prisoners of war and the wounded in armed conflicts.
Switzerland has been chosen to host; Because it is a historically neutral country that has not participated in any international conflict, which made it a reliable broker enjoys a large acceptance. It is also the cradle of the ICRC (CICR), which led the efforts to establish these agreements; To ensure minimal humanity during the wars.
In addition, Geneva welcomes many international organizations, such as the United Nations and human rights organizations, which has strengthened its reference role in international humanitarian law, and has made it the main guarantor of the implementation of these agreements.
Why cancel the conference planned for the Palestinian territories?
The decision to cancel the fourth conference of the Geneva Convention, which was scheduled for March 7/ /March 2025, controversyًا Broad on the real reasons for this sudden drop. While Switzerland justified the cancellation of the absence of international consensus and the lack of participation, the reality indicates the existence of a complex network of political, diplomatic and legal factors that played a major role in the obstruction of the conference.
These factors varied between Western pressure, objections to the drafting of the closing declaration and the differences on the holding of Israel’s legal responsibility, in addition to the retirement of certain countries of attendance, which led to the loss of the conference of its political weight.
The Israeli position was not far from these developments, because Israel has opposed the conference from the start, and considered it to be part of the “legal war” targeting its policies in the occupied territories.
Such Aviv has exerted great pressure on its Western allies to ensure that it is not detained, and has also undermined any attempt to make the legal platform which could lead to imposing sanctions or legal measures under the fourth Geneva Convention.
On the other hand, and although it has not been declared an official post, the United States has provided indirect diplomatic support in Israel and helped create an unfavorable political environment for the conference of the conference, which led European countries to withdraw from the clearly supported event.
In addition, the declaration of closing of the project prepared by Switzerland has been the subject of a generalized controversy, because it faced objections of Palestine and the organization of Islamic cooperation, because it did not include binding measures or clear mechanisms to ensure the compliance of Israel for the fourth Geneva Convention.
There was also an attempt to assimilate the Israeli occupation of the Palestinians by referring to the “violations of all the parties”, which aroused strong criticism from the Arab and Islamic countries.
In addition, the project did not take into account the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning the illegality of the Israeli occupation, which pretended to be just an inaccurate political declaration, rather than being a legal document which supports concrete measures.
In the European context, other British and European reserves have emerged on the project, because certain countries considered that its formulation is unbalanced, which led to the disruption of access to an international consensus that supports the conference.
There was not enough political will within the European Union to take a strict position against Israel, in particular in the light of the concerns of possible economic and diplomatic repercussions.
This frequency has reduced the number of countries supporting the conference, which in turn led to a low international presence, because some governments preferred to abstain from participating instead of dealing with American and Israeli pressures.
Although invitations were sent to 196 countries, the response was lower than that expected, which gave Switzerland an additional justification for the cancellation of the conference.
There are questions on the question of whether the deliberate underestimation of attendance is part of a plan aimed at politically weakening the event, in particular in the light of doubts about certain Western countries abstaining from attendance; To avoid any legal escalation against Israel.
The lack of general support made the conference lose to lose its legal and diplomatic weight, which prompted Switzerland to cancel it instead of maintaining it without real impact.
On the other hand, Switzerland’s decision had an internal and international political dimension, because it was in a sensitive position between its “traditional neutrality” and its legal obligations as a depositary of the Geneva Conventions.
Geneva did not want to conclude a diplomatic confrontation which could affect its relations with the main powers, in particular after being criticized by certain Western and Israeli parties; Due to its desire to welcome the conference in the first place.
In the end, Switzerland preferred to cancel the conference instead of organizing a meeting that suffers from the absence of international consensus, which reflects the political accounts that have submerged legal and humanitarian considerations.
The cancellation of the conference does not mean the end of the allegations of implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention on Palestine, but it reflects the size of the political challenges which hamper the implementation of international humanitarian law on questions related to Israel.
Has Switzerland already cancel similar activities?
Switzerland has always been known for its diplomatic neutrality and led by international conferences, in particular those linked to international humanitarian law. However, there are historical precedents that indicate their frequency or cancellation of similar activities linked to the Palestinian question, under the influence of political pressure and international differences.
On December 5, 2001, Switzerland called for a conference of the semitic parties which contract in the Fourth Geneva Convention to discuss the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, following the second intifada and the serious Israeli violations.
Despite the conference, it only lasted 15 minutes, because a brief declaration was published confirming that the agreement applied to the occupied Palestinian territories, while leaving the door open to the possibility of holding another conference “in the light of the developments of the humanitarian situation in the region”. This event reflects the way in which political pressure at the time prevented decisive decisions, which led to an official conference without any concrete legal impact.
At that time, the United States and Israel expressed their opposition to the conference; On the pretext that his concession can hinder current peace efforts in the Middle East.
This position has reduced the efficiency of the conference because it was not published by any binding decision, which made it a more formal measure than a practical step to hold Israel responsible for its violations in the occupied territories.
In 2009, after the publication of the Goldstone report, which documented Israel’s violations during the war against Gaza, its discussion planned in Geneva was postponed. It is true that Switzerland had no direct role in this postponement, as at the request of the Palestinian authority following the American and Israeli pressure; On the pretext that the supply of the relationship can negatively affect the peace process.
However, as a depositary state of the Geneva Conventions, he also did not take active measures to push it towards international responsibility, which reflects the nature of its prudent policies and its diplomatic balances.
These historical precedents reveal that Switzerland, despite its role of neutral and the sponsor of Geneva Conventions, can be found in complex situations which require a precise balance between its legal obligations and its international political pressures.
In many cases, these pressures seem to have weakened its role in promoting international responsibility, in particular with regard to the Palestinian issue.
In general, the cancellation of the conference, which was scheduled for this month to implement the Geneva Convention on the Palestinian territories, is not the end. Rather, this can be an incentive for countries that have committed to implementing international law and international human rights organizations to seek alternatives to improve international justice, whether through the detention of the conference in another country, by the United Nations or even through legal journey before the International Court of Justice, or national courts with global jurisdiction.
The most important question remains: can these parties in turn overcome political pressure and find a new way of maintaining the voice of international law and holding the responsible Israeli occupation?
The opinions of the article do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al-Jazeera.