UN Commissions of Inquiry: Role and Relevance

Explore how UN Commissions of Inquiry investigate crises, from Rwanda to Gaza, shaping accountability, evidence, and global justice under international law.

Context

The latest United Nations (UN) Commission of Inquiry (CoI) report accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza has reignited debates on accountability under the 1948 Genocide Convention. The report, released in September 2025, aligns with ongoing hearings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case brought by South Africa against Israel.

This development highlights the pivotal role of UN Commissions of Inquiry—fact-finding bodies designed to investigate grave human rights and humanitarian law violations—and their increasing importance in shaping global justice.

What are UN International Commissions of Inquiry?

Establishment and Mandate

Commissions of Inquiry are independent investigative mechanisms set up by the UN to probe serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL).

Authority to establish: They can be created by the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), General Assembly (UNGA), Security Council (UNSC), or the Secretary-General.
Origins: Before the HRC was formed in 2006, such inquiries already existed, including the 2004 Darfur Commission of Inquiry. Since then, CoIs have become a primary instrument of the HRC to respond to crises.

Appointment and Structure

Members are independent, unpaid experts—often judges, lawyers, or human rights specialists.
They are appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council or the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Support is provided by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which offers technical, legal, and logistical resources.

Mandate and Methods

A CoI’s mandate usually includes:

Gathering verified evidence of violations.
Conducting witness interviews, including refugees and displaced persons.
Using satellite imagery and forensic analysis.
Analyzing state actions under international treaties.

Crucially, CoIs do not issue binding rulings. Instead, their findings serve as evidence for courts like the ICC or ICJ and inform international policymaking.

Significance of Commissions of Inquiry

Promoting Accountability and Deterrence

CoIs provide credible evidence that can be used to prosecute atrocity crimes.
Example: Documentation from the UN Rwanda CoI (1994) became critical to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), which prosecuted leaders responsible for genocide.

Current Case: Israel–Gaza Conflict (2025)

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, established in 2021, delivered its most serious findings in September 2025.
The report concluded that Israel committed genocidal acts under the Genocide Convention.
Key evidence included:
- Mass killings (64,000+ deaths as per Gaza Health Ministry).
- Starvation and famine induced by blockade and targeting of supplies.
- Forced displacement of civilians.
- Destruction of Gaza’s fertility clinic, seen as targeting the reproductive capacity of the population.
Israel rejected the findings as “distorted,” but the report has bolstered South Africa’s ICJ genocide case.

Past Investigations

Syria (2011–present): Documented war crimes including chemical weapons use, mass torture, and extrajudicial killings.
Myanmar (2017): Concluded that the military had acted with “genocidal intent” against Rohingya Muslims. Findings influenced The Gambia’s ICJ case against Myanmar.
Darfur (2004): First major CoI into mass atrocities post-Cold War, influencing the creation of the ICC Darfur investigations.

Broader Impact

CoIs expose state responsibility and support the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P).
They influence sanctions, humanitarian aid decisions, and peace negotiations.
As noted in India’s Economic Survey (2022–23), such mechanisms reinforce multilateral governance and global trust, particularly critical for smaller and developing nations that rely on international law.

Why Do They Matter?

Documentation for justice: Without credible evidence, atrocity crimes remain politically contested. CoIs supply neutral fact-finding.
Pressure on states: Findings increase diplomatic pressure and restrict impunity.
Voice to victims: Witness testimony helps survivors tell their stories in global forums.

CoIs may not deliver direct justice themselves, but they are indispensable in laying the groundwork for accountability.

What Lies Ahead?

The Gaza CoI’s findings represent the strongest UN-linked genocide assessment since Rwanda. However, limitations remain:

Only courts like the ICJ can legally declare genocide.
CoIs depend on member states for action—whether to refer cases to the ICC, impose sanctions, or support humanitarian interventions.
The ultimate test lies in whether states fulfill their Genocide Convention duty to prevent and punish or whether political divisions again produce global inaction.

The effectiveness of CoIs thus depends less on their findings than on the political will of states to act upon them.

Conclusion

UN Commissions of Inquiry are not courts of law, but they are critical instruments of global justice. From Rwanda to Myanmar, Syria, and now Gaza, their reports have shaped international legal proceedings and diplomatic responses.

The Israel–Gaza genocide allegations show both their strength—credible documentation and global awareness—and their limitation, as binding accountability rests with courts like the ICJ.

In a fractured world order, CoIs remain one of the few neutral mechanisms through which truth is recorded, victims are heard, and states are pressured to uphold international law. Whether the Gaza report leads to meaningful accountability will depend on whether the world chooses principle over politics.

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel for more Valuable Content – TheStudyias

Download the App to Subscribe to our Courses – Thestudyias