wow, you get to watch all your favorite stuff. it's to die for. now you won't miss a thing. this is the way. the xfinity 10g network. made for streaming. ♪ ♪ narrator: funding for this presentation of this program is provided by... woman: architect. bee keeper. mentor. a raymond james financial advisor tailors advice to help you live your life. life well planned. george: actually, you don't need vision to do most things in life.

it's exciting to be part of a team driving the technology forward. i ink that's the most rewarding thing. people who know, know bdo. narrator: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation. and by judy and peter blum kovler foundation; pursuing solutions for america's neglected needs. announcer: and now, "bbc news". ♪ christian: hello. i'm istin fisher, and this is "the context." >> its military forces do not connect the aforementioned acts. >> israel's commitment to international law is unwavering. equally unwavering is our commitment to defend our country and our people. >> this is being widely

interpreted as a victory for south africa, because the icj judges decided there is a plausible reason they believe they need to intervene in this case. christian: the u.n.'s highest court says israel must make every effort to present jen -- prevent genocidal efforts in gaza. south africa welcomes the result, israel says it is blatant discrimination. reports that beijing has asked iran to rein in attacks on commercial shipping in the red sea. surging violence in ecuador. we have a special report on the government's war on the drug cartels. and the helicopter that could, but can't anymore. nasa's ingenuity will fly no more. a very good evening. the u.n.'s international court of justice says israel must ensure its forces did not commit

acts of genocide against palestinians in gaza. in an interim judgment delivered this afternoon, the court stopped short of demanding an immediate cease-fire to the war. it provides a strong indication that the judges believe there is at least a credible risk to palestinians under the genocide convention. israel strongly denies the accusation. prime minister netanyahu said his country will continue to defend its up while adhering to international law. here is paul adams. paul: gaza's despair just seems to deepen. in gaza city, a rare comes of age brings chaos and precious little relief -- a rare glimpse of aid brings caps on precious little relief the palestinian publishing is on its knees, hundreds of sick or dead. whether this amounts to genocide is a decision for another day, but all this, the u.n.'s top court insists, has to stop

before it gets worse. >> the military operation conducted by israel after 7 october 2023 has resulted inter alia intensive thousands of deaths and injuries and it is production -- the destruction of homes, schools, medical facilities, and other infrastructure, as well as displacement on a massive scale. in these circumstances the court considers that the catastrophic community situation in the gaza strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the court renders its final judgment. paul: by overwhelming majorities, the court's 17 judges ruled that israel must avoid killing or seriously harming palestinians mentally or physically, inflicting living conditions designed to destroy the palestinian population, in w hole or in part, or imposing measures which prevent palestinian births. the judges also said israel must take all measures to prevent and punish public incitement to

genocide, and do more immediately to improve humanitarian assistance. in the west bank, palestinians watched intently, wondering if anything will change. >> states now have a clear legal obligation to stop israel's genocidal war on the palestinian people in gaza and to make sure that they are not complicit. the icj order is an important reminder that no state is above the law. paul: crucially, the court did not demand an immediate cease-fire, but it wants isrl to behave very differently ata time when it's prime minister says the war could go on many more months. prime min. netanyahu: like any country, israel has an inherent right to defend itself the vile attempt to deny israel this right is blatant this commission

against a jewish state and was rejected. the charge of genocide is not only false, it is outrageous, and decent people everywhere should reject it. paul: the court also called for israeli hostages to be released without condition. but it is powerless to make any of this happen. today's ruling was a significant, but it doesn't necessarily mean that an end to the agony of palestinians or israelis is any closer. paul adams, bbc news. christian: let's speak to a professor of international law at the yale law school. thank you for being with us on the program. the ruling came into two parts and i would like to take them one by one if we could and start with the jurisdiction of the case. israel has said they don't believe the court has jurisdiction over the case. what did you hear on that? >> well, the court said in fact it does have jurisdiction. it says there is a dispute under the genocide convention that means that the two sides have diametrically opposing views

about whether in fact there is a credible allegation of genocide here. and the court said they he differing views, and therefore there is jurisdiction under the genocide convention. the court also found that south africa does have standing to bring this case against israel for the violation of genocide convention using a new technique that the court developed that allows states that are party to the genocide convention to bring a suit against another state that they think is violating the genocide convention even if they aren't directly involved or directly harmed by those claimed acts of genocide. in that case in that respect this was a resounding win for south africa. christian: the second part of the ruling referred to the steps they expect israel to take in the next month to protect civilian life. who is going to adjudicate that? >> well, in the first instance

it is going to be up to israel to decide how it is going to respond to these orders. the court made clear, and it is true under international law, that the decision is binding on the parties without anything else having to happen. it doesn't require any additional action other than the court issuing tis ruling -- its ruling. this is binding on israel, it requires binding obligations, and they are obligated under international law to follow this order that the international court of justice has issued. the first step is going to be to see what they do. do they act consistent with this order? in the order does call on them to wage this war in a way that is not going to prejudice the claims of genocide, concerns about killing civilians, creating conditions in which it is impossible for civilians to live their lives, providing for humanitarian assistance and access to food. these are some of the measures that the court has called on israel to do, including

preventing incitement to genocide and not engaging in incitement to genocide itself. the first instance is going to be to see whether israel takes those actions. the court did require that israel report back within a month on actions that it is taking to carry out this order. and so we will see what they say. they have done -- we will see what they say they have done. we will also see how other states are going to react. one key thing to look for is how does the united states respond to this. for many states that are providing assistance to israel, one of the key questions is are they now potentially at risk of violating the genocide convention if they continue to provide support to israel, if israel wages the work in the way that it has -- wages the war in the way that it has. christian: there is precedent for the court to order an immediate cease-fire. he did -- it did under the

genocide convention. >> these two are very different cases. recall that the case ukraine brought against russia, they said that russia's claiming we are committing genocide and they are claiming that is why they have a right to engage in this invasion of ukraine, and we want the court to say that that is not correct, that there is no act of genocide, and that russia's invasion is not justified by any claims of genocide. that is what the court did say. it said, look, there is no credible allegations of genocide against ukraine, and therefore the invasion cannot be justified in that way. this is a very different case. this is a case where south africa is alleging that israel is committing genocide in the courts of its war in gaza. but it doesn't challenge, and i don't think certainly the court doesn't challenge the right of israel to defend itself in light of the attacks by hamas.

so israel does have a legitimate right of self-defense against hamas, and the court was not questioning that. but he was saying you will have to wage that war in a way that is consistent with genocide convention, and that there are credible allegations that that is not happening. it is not ordering the end of the war, but it is ordering that israel change the way it is conducting this war. christian: professor hathaway, thank you for coming on the program. let's get a view from the palestinian side. he's the director and principal lawyer for palestinians for human rights. thank you for coming on the program. they stopped short of calling for a cease-fire. are you disappointed by that? >> i think without question that cease-fire is very -- it is very understandable that the focus on the cease-fire is fair because of the suffering of the palestinian people.

however, it's important to see the light in this decision. and there are a few things that should be emphasized. first, the court has recognized continental human rights of the palestinian people including the continental right to life. it is confirmation of fundamental rights. and it is an indication of the shock felt by humanity witnessing fellow human beings being afflicted with extreme suffering. sorry, christian, go ahead . christian: no, i was going to say that all parties are bound by this law, and that includes hamas. they are gravely concerned, they say, about the fate of hostages that continue to be held, and they call for the immediate and unconditional release. should we be making the same demands today of hamas, and is the palestinians i doing that?

tareq: i think it is really important that you race this point, christian. the court properly raised the issue of hostages and very much emphasized that they should be immediately, unconditionally released. thats a very important, essential demand. it very much fits alongside what the court has done related to its order, to try to assure that the parties to this conflict abide by international humanitarian law. christian: it is not a very good line, so we will leave it there, but thk you very much for your thought with me in the studio is international editor jeremy bowen. a lot of angry rhetoric today, but i would imagine that is usually in this case, they will take it back and considerate. will it change the way that

israel executes the war? jeremy: that is what the court hopes. the court has said very clearly that israel -- it did not ask for a cease-fire, which isn't surprising, because estate have a right to self-defense. israel was attacked on the seventh of october, they are fighting back. the issue is how they fight. the court wants them to fight in a very different way, and it as it said come back to us in a month from now and show us what you are doing. will israel change the way it is fighting? well, we will have to see. the americans have been onto them for what seems like months to try to fight in a more targeted way. don't just drop a big bombs on the area you want to hit. be more surgical, is what the americans -- the way they put it in the hope of reducing the number of civilians who are being killed. the court has been very specific about what it wants. let's see if it does make a difference. i think it will increase pressure for a cease-fire. christian: interesting but

professor hathaway said about the influence key allies have on israeli policy and whether they now feel they are on the hook because of what the court has said, and they obviously are bound by the same judgment. do you think the united states and the u.k., germany, might now think there is some urgency to getting israel to change the way it is behaving? jeremy: they are in a difficult situation. i think it really complicates the politics of supporting israel in the way that they have. when it all started, they said very clearly this is trorism, israel has the right to defend itself and then the americans started saying don't get blinded by vengeance, as the americans did after 9/11. joe biden said that. and now they are saying you are killing too many palestinians. but at the same time, the americans, and also the brits in a much more minor way, of providing military infrastructure, weapons in the case of the americans, to the israelis.

under the genocide convention, it says that signatoes, parties to it, have an obligation to prevent and punish genocide if they see it happening. the courts are saying there is a risk it could be happening in gaza. they still have to work on that and spend a couple of years debating it. but they feel that the case south africa has made is plausible, and the risk is real enough to demd these special measures, which they have said israel needs to respect. christian: one of the tests, one of the key tests, will be whether they can alleviate the humanitarian crisis in gaza, which is well document. getting more aid into the strip. what can you disperse and distribute aid within the gaza strip without a cease-fire? jeremy: well, you certainly can't do it at the moment, the way that things are. one of the things that the president of the court, justice donahue, said was in a northern gaza, she quoted a really

horrific statistic, i think from the world health organization, saying something like 90-plus-percent of people there are effectively starving, that there are very high rates of malnutrition. gaza is a really small territory, less than 30 miles from the bottom to the top. but because of the way israelis are deployed and the way they restrict movement and shoot people if they go to places the israelis don't want them to be in, they cannot get food and medicine and aid to these people. to run a proper aid operation, they need freedom of access and freedom of movement. they have gotten either at the moment. i don't think it is possible for israel to continue fighting the y that it has been and to allow those things to happen. christian: you might have seen this report in axios today that the patients running out in the white house, that apparently -- patience is running out in the white house, that apparently on a call joe biden said i'm not

going to indefinitely support him for a year. he has bill burns and brett mcgurk in the region as well. are they perhaps trying to find a beachhead, maybe a two-month pause from which they can extract cease-fire? jeremy: i think the hope not just from the americans, but from lord cameron, was been talking the perspective of the british, that if there is a two-month, 60-day pause, it will be hard to start shooting again. from the political side in israel, netanyahu, he has a what victory looks like, destroy -- he has stated what victory looks like, destroy hamas, get the hostages back. where does that leave them if they do a deal effectively with hamas and hamas is still there? none of the key men in hamas have been captured or killed, as far as we know. he will be under pressure from the right-wing parties that sustain his government not to

make those kinds of compromises. and in theory they could pull the plug upon his government. in that case israel will go to elections and will be in political turmoil, even more so than it is at the moment. there is a whole other new road which is opening up as a result of this ruling that does change the way that events may unfold. christian: really interesting and complex. jeremy, thank you for coming in. around the world and across the u.k., you are watching bbc news. let's take a quick look at stories making news here today. the bbc has found that more than 60 phone calls were made to the police and social services in the three years before a nine-year-old boy was killed by his mother and her partner. he died in worcestershire in 2021 after suffering abuse. the report has highlighted a string of missed opportunities. the u.k. has halted trade talks with canada due to a disagreement over beef and cheese.

the two nations have been negotiating the last two years after britain left the eu, with trade continuing under the same deal originally brokered when the u.k. was a member of the bloc. conservative peer and her husband have had millions of pounds of assets frozen or restrained by a court order obtained by the crown prosecution service. the national crime agencies investigating allegations of fraud in contract for personal protective equipment awarded during the pandemic to a company that was linked to the husband. you are live with bbc news. u.s. central command confirmed today it shot down another anti-ship a ballistic missile that was flying towards the uss carney from houthi-controlled yemen. the shift was operating in the gulf of aden. a lot of the focus has been on the u.s.-u.k. response to these attacks.

but reuters is reporting that china is getting involved, citing four iranian sources. the report says officials from beijing have been asking iranian counterparts to help rein in the who these -- the houthis. the discussions took place in beijing and tehran. this is also a route that is used widely by ships from china, who are exporting to europe, and we know what's under pressure the chinese economy is under right now. beijing does have some leverage, too. they take 90% of the iranian crude that was exported last year. let's bring in a fellow for chinese politics at asia society policy instituteenter for china analysis. welcome to the program. it's really interesting, this, because we have been wholly focused on western companies, but a large part of the chinese economy is still dependent on exports, and they come on this route. >> that's true.

it's certainly something that concerns international trade writ large, not just western countries. there are some reports, however, that the houthiebels in yemen are allowing chinese-flagged ships to sail through, contested areas, and the chinese commercial navy isn't experiencing the same type of difficulties. but still, creating that instability, creating that threat of something going wrong on a chinese ship or chinese trade routes coming under attack or the danger, therefore the insurance premiums rise more generally, that is a threat to china's interest as well and the longer term. christian: just on that point quickly, presumably not all chinese exports travel on chinese-flagships. neil: exactly. it is a problem that is may less direct and less present for chinese importers and exporters

and the chinese economy writ large. you have not seen quite as strong or immediate reaction from the chinese government. but perhaps it is an indication that that is beginning to change. christian: we have seen before -- in fact, we saw it last year, the sort of influence china has over some of its allies. they brokered a deal between saudi arabia and iran, for instance. am i right that they do have significant leverage over tehran? neil: they do have some leverage over tehran, that at least is clear. china buys a huge majority of iran's exported oil, obviously a lifeline for a regime that is under significant u.s. and international sanctions. china is trying to increase its own presence and diplomatic power within the middle east. china has some leverage and some intentions and interests there. at the same time, iran also has

its own interests and its own allies, various rebel groups and other organizations in the region, that has to look out for. it is not necessarily a complete convergence of interests or complete asymmetry of power were china consent we say something to iran and that would be enough to stop the houthis from threatening international shipping. really interesting to see just how much influence china has, because this would be a big test of its leverage over iran and whether this leads to any calming of the situation. if it does come that is a big diplomatic victory for china, and that will be seen across the region and across the world. if it doesn't make any difference, that is going to make china question potentially what it is getting out of its relationship with iran. we could see some type of economic pressure being put on tehran by being. christian: while we have you, can we talk about another issue? we have learned today that a british man who disappeared in china five years ago has been

jailed on espionage charges. he was jailed two years ago. beijing's foreign ministry confirmed that ian stone, a businessman around 70 years old, was jailed for five years by chinese court in 2022, found guilty of being bribed to provide intelligence illegally, say the chinese, by external forces. >> the chinese courtwright the case -- the chinese court tried the case strictly in accordance with law, guaranteeing the legitimate rights of ian stone and for the u.k. site to visit his trial. christian: sir ian duncan smith, former conservative leader, said he'd raise this issue with the british government over a number of years, neil, and nothing at, out of it. until we got this news today. it just begs the question what the right strategy is, because there are others being held in china. the policy seems to be that they don't -- the british government don't like publici while the

negotiation is ongoing. does this suggest that publicity would be better? neil: it is harder to say definitively. it depends to some extent on the nature of the charges, the nature of different cases. but it is certainly true that we have seen in the past that the level of publicity attached to some of these detentions of foreigners in china has either contributed to their eventual resolution. not necessarily quick resolution -- if we remember the case of the two michaels, two canadians detained. it took them three years to be released by chinese authorities after the other had been released by the canadian authorities. but there was a huge amount of attention on the case. and now both of the michaels are back home in canada, so it did lead to a resolution.

i think the publicity did contribute. christian: interesting. neil thomas, thank you for your thoughts this evening. we will see what comes of that chinese leverage over iran. coming up after the break, we will talk about a country in latin america, ecuador, which has tipped into chaos in recent weeks. we are going to deep-dive into what is going on there. do stay with us. narrator: funding for this presentation of this program is provided by... narrator: financial services firm, raymond james. man: bdo. accountants and advisors. narrator: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation. and by judy and peter blum kovler foundation; pursuing solutions for america's neglected needs. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ narrator: funding for this presentation of this program is provided by... woman: architect. bee keeper. mentor. a raymond james financial advisor tailors advice to help you live your life. life well planned. george: actually, you don't need vision to do most things in life.