UN ceasefire resolution in Gaza: Are UN resolutions binding? 

Although Deputy UN spokesperson Farhan Haq said yesterday that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions were international law, "so to that extent they are as binding as international law is", Israel seems to not care. 

The day after the UNSC adopted a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants Hamas, Israel intensified attacks, killing 18, including nine children. 

The US, which abstained from the vote, also described Monday's resolution as non-binding. 

US ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield said Washington fully supported "some of the critical objectives in this non-binding resolution". 

On the same day, US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told reporters: "It is a non-binding resolution".

So, which is it?

The remaining 14 council members voted for the resolution - proposed by the 10 elected members of the body - that also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. 

The resolution calls for an "immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting, sustainable ceasefire".

It additionally calls for the release of the Israeli captives taken by Hamas on October 7. 

It emphasises the need for more humanitarian aid flowing into Gaza and on adherence to international law.

All UNSC resolutions are considered binding, in accordance with Article 25 of the UN Charter which was ratified by the US.

Regarding the non-binding argument, this has been contested by other UN officials and Security Council members. 

China's UN ambassador Zhang Jun said Security Council resolutions are binding.

The Anadolu Agency reported that Pedro Comissario, Mozambique's UN ambassador, said "all United Nations Security Council resolutions are binding and mandatory".

If a UNSC resolution is not followed, the council can vote on a follow-up resolution addressing the breach and take punitive action in the form of sanctions or even the authorisation of an international force.

More recently, in December 2023, the UN General Assembly voted with an overwhelming majority to call for a "humanitarian ceasefire". That was a non-binding resolution – and Israel refused to act on it.

Israel is also under the scanner of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where South Africa has accused it of committing acts of genocide in Gaza.   

Will the UN resolution stop the war?

While promising at least a pause in the war, the resolution has been criticised by some analysts for being more symbolic than substantial in its ability to bring an end to the war. 

The resolution calls for an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan. However, since Ramadan ends around 9 April, the ceasefire demand – even if implemented now – would last for just two weeks.

The document says that the immediate ceasefire in Ramadan should then lead to a lasting and sustainable ceasefire. 

Shortly before the vote on Monday, the word "permanent" was dropped from the resolution to try to build consensus on the text. Russia tried to push for the use of the word "permanent," saying that not using the word could allow Israel "to resume its military operation in the Gaza Strip at any moment" after Ramadan.

How is this resolution different from the recent resolution that failed?

A draft resolution was put forth by the US before the council last Friday and the members voted on it. It was vetoed by Russia and China; Algeria voted against it and Guyana abstained. Eleven members voted in favour of this draft resolution.

The resolution did not demand a ceasefire, but instead supported "international diplomatic efforts to establish an immediate and sustained ceasefire as part of a deal that releases the hostages".

In a press statement on Monday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken added that the US wants any demands of a ceasefire to be tied to the release of Israeli captives.

The Friday resolution also urged UNSC member states to "suppress the financing of terrorism, including by restricting financing of Hamas". The resolution also condemned Hamas and noted that Hamas "has been designated as a terrorist organisation by numerous member states". Blinken's statement further said that the resolution that passed on Monday failed to condemn Hamas, which is key language that the US views as essential.

Israel has criticised Monday's resolution for not tying a ceasefire to the release of captives – and instead for the two to each happen separately.