"The strength of the decision is that it does what courts often do best – speak the law, establish the facts – even though this is not what provisional measures are normally about.
The decision generates unity about the finding of a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza – it is primarily expressive, speaking to world public opinion in the hope to foster common understandings.
In contrast, the actual provisional measures remain vague – the Court does less to specify what would need to be done to prevent irreparable harm and to shape and channel political discourses in this respect. This may be because of internal dynamics or for fear of being disobeyed.
In the end, the Court speaks truth to power, but it does so rather timidly."