Introduction: What Changed Since July?
In mid-July 2025, a coalition of over 30 states met in Bogotá under the auspices of the “Hague Group” to issue what its organizers called “concrete measures” against Israel’s operations in Gaza. They framed this as a turning point: no longer merely verbal condemnation, but a coordinated attempt to enforce international law, restrict arms flows, and assert that no state is above accountability.
Since then, a number of developments have added urgency, clarified the shape of the coalition, and revealed both its potential and its fragilities. In October, the Israeli interception of an aid flotilla triggered the expulsion of Israeli diplomats from Colombia and intensified international pressure. In short: what was in July a bold initiative is now being stress-tested in real time.
To understand its significance, we must locate it in at least three overlapping trajectories:
- The erosion of Western dominance in enforcing global norms
- The rising assertiveness of Global SouthGlobal South
Full Description:The Global South is a term that has largely replaced “Third World” to describe the nations of Africa, Latin America, and developing Asia. It is less a geographical designator (as it includes countries in the northern hemisphere) and more a political grouping of nations that share a history of colonialism, economic marginalization, and a peripheral position in the world financial system. Bandung is often cited as the birth of the Global South as a self-aware political consciousness.
Critical Perspective:While the term implies solidarity, critics argue it acts as a “flattening” concept. It lumps together economic superpowers like China and India with some of the world’s poorest nations, obscuring the vast power imbalances and divergent interests within this bloc. It risks creating a binary worldview that ignores the internal class exploitations within developing nations by focusing solely on their external exploitation by the North.
Read more coalitions and multipolar alignments - The internal tension between rhetoric and implementation in such coalitions
Below I trace how these dynamics intersect in the Bogotá coalition, evaluate its early outcomes, and offer scenarios for its future.
Origins: The Hague Group, the ICJ, and Legal Mandates
The Hague Group was formally launched on 31 January 2025 by a cluster of Global South states, with the explicit purpose of defending rulings from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Criminal Court (ICC) related to Israel and Palestine. Its founding charter committed members to enforcing provisional measures issued by the ICJ in 2024—measures that had ordered Israel to halt operations harmful to the rights of Palestinians, particularly in Gaza.
The Bogotá conference (15–16 July 2025) was the first major test of that founding logic. Hosted by Colombia and South Africa, it brought together states from all continents — Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America — to move “beyond words.” Out of those participants, 12 countries signed onto six initial measures: arms embargoes, port restrictions, public contract reviews, universal jurisdiction support, and legal investigations. Other states promised to consider adoption by a September deadline in line with UN mandates.
That legal framing is significant: it gives the coalition a discursive cover of compliance with existing international law, as opposed to an openly adversarial “bloc formation.” The strategy is not simply to isolate Israel politically, but to assert a legal obligation argument: states must act or risk complicity.
Key Players and Commitments
Colombia: Host, Symbol, and Pressure Point
Colombia under President Gustavo Petro has positioned itself as one of the most vocal critics of Israeli policy. When the Israeli navy detained two Colombian citizens aboard an aid flotilla in October 2025, Colombia expelled Israel’s diplomatic mission and suspended its free trade agreement with Israel. While some of this is symbolic (the trade suspension must go through Congress, and commitments may lag), the political signal is clear: Bogotá is now not just host but active participant in enforcement.
South Africa: Legal Protagonist
South Africa has led legally — initiating cases at the ICJ, advocating for genocide designations, and serving as a moral-political anchor for the coalition. Its Minister of International Relations framed the Bogotá measures as an affirmation that no state is above the law.
The Expanding Coalition
Although only 12 states formally adopted the six measures at the conference, over 30 attended. The list of potential signatories includes Spain, Ireland, China, Brazil, Turkey, Qatar, and others. This signals two things: (a) a shared dissatisfaction with existing international institutions’ (e.g., UN, EU) handling of Gaza, and (b) willingness by some traditionally Western-aligned states to cross rhetorical lines.
Notably, some European states (Spain, Ireland) appeared to deviate from mainstream EU policy alignment by signaling interest in “concrete measures.”
But attendance is not equivalent to commitment: many states reserved judgment or pledged to decide later, meaning that implementation remains uneven.
What’s Been Achieved (and What’s Pressured)
Symbolic Breakthrough vs Real Constraints
The Bogotá measures represent one of the boldest multilateral efforts in memory to treat Gaza’s conflict as not just humanitarian but legal, with enforceable obligations. The shift is from selective internationalism to a demand for accountability even for powerful states.
However, practical implementation so far appears limited. Some states face logistical, political, or economic constraints in enforcing embargoes, reviewing contracts, or invoking universal jurisdiction. The gap between what was promised and what can be executed quickly may hamper momentum.
Escalation via Flotilla Incident
The October 2025 flotilla interception pushed the coalition from symbolic to reactive mode. Colombia’s expulsion of diplomats and suspension of treaty relationships added real costs. If more states follow suit, the coalition may gain momentum beyond mere declarations.
European and Western Pressure
Western states and institutions reacted with skepticism and defensive posture. The U.S. continues to assert its veto powerVeto Power Full Description:Veto Power is the ultimate mechanism of control within the UN. It ensures that no action—whether it be sanctions, peacekeeping, or condemnation—can be taken against the interests of the major powers. The mechanism was the price of admission for the great powers, ensuring they would never be forced to act against their national interests by a global majority. Critical Perspective:This power is frequently cited as the primary cause of the UN’s paralysis in the face of genocide and war. It allows a single superpower to provide diplomatic cover for client states committing atrocities, rendering the international community powerless to act. It essentially prioritizes the geopolitical stability of the great powers over the protection of human life. , making collective action against Israel politically fraught. The EU, divided among pro-Israel, neutral, and conditional voices, is under pressure to consider suspending preferential agreements or imposing sanctions—actions already under discussion in some capitals. AP News+2The Times+2 This tension spotlights a clearing fault line: whether Western-led liberal order can still claim legal legitimacy when its own policies are under moral scrutiny.
Geopolitical Implications & Shifting Power Structures
Erosion of Western Legal Hegemony
The Bogotá coalition signals declining confidence in conventional Western supremacy over interpreting and enforcing international law. By convening outside UN Security CouncilSecurity Council Full Description:The Security Council is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions and authorize military force. While the General Assembly includes all nations, real power is concentrated here. The council is dominated by the “Permanent Five” (P5), reflecting the military victors of the last major global conflict rather than current geopolitical realities or democratic representation. Critical Perspective:Critics argue the Security Council renders the UN undemocratic by design. It creates a two-tiered system of sovereignty: the Permanent Five are effectively above the law, able to shield themselves and their allies from scrutiny, while the rest of the world is subject to the Council’s enforcement. frameworks, these states are asserting parallel legitimacy. The message: the monopoly of legal norm-setting may no longer rest with treaty powers. This shift is both symbolic and structural: it challenges the hierarchy of states in gendered legal authority.
Multipolar Alignments and Chinese Presence
China’s attendance at Bogotá (or at least engagement with the talks) is significant: it offers an alternative to U.S. leverage and underlines that many Global South states see strategic value in hedging. For the first time in decades, the cost of rebelling against U.S. pressure is lower: states can say they have Chinese, regional, or multipolar backing. That shifts negotiating calculus.
Blocs with Dual Identity
Bogotá is not a purely “Global South” bloc — several attending and prospective states are European, Latin American, or nominally Western-aligned. Its hybrid composition makes it harder to dismiss as fringe. It also fits the pattern of emergent issue-based coalitions cutting across conventional blocs (e.g. climate treaties, digital sovereignty coalitions).
Risks, Tensions, and Fault Lines
Implementation and Enforcement Weakness
Declarations are easier than enforcement. Arms embargoes, port denials, contract reviews, universal jurisdiction — all require domestic legal capacity, domestic political will, and multilateral coordination. States with weaker judicial or oversight institutions may struggle.
Retaliation and Coercive Responses
States opposing the coalition may retaliate via economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, or even military intimidation. The U.S. and Israel’s capacity to pressure smaller states economically remains significant.
Internal Divergences
Different states have different thresholds of tolerance for risk. Some might commit only symbolic measures; others, more bold. Disagreements over sequencing, scope, or prioritization (legal vs economic vs military) could strain cohesion.
Moral Overextension
If expectations rise too fast, and results lag, the coalition may suffer reputational backfire. Critics may call it performative, hypocritical, or legally overreaching. The coalition must manage its narrative carefully.
October 2025: Where Things Stand & What to Watch
- Diplomatic Fallout
Colombia’s diplomatic moves set a precedent. Watch whether other host or participant countries follow with expulsions or treaty suspensions (e.g. trade deals with Israel). - Expansion of Formal Adopters
By the September deadline, more states may formally adopt the Bogotá measures. Turkey already was reported to have followed soon after. The inclusion of EU states would amplify pressure. - EU and Western Response
The EU faces internal divisions over whether to impose trade suspensions, arms bans, or visa restrictions on Israeli officials. Some EU states have already banned entry for certain Israeli ministers. How the EU collective chooses to respond will determine whether the coalition remains peripheral or provokes broader crisis. - Legal Actions & Universal Jurisdiction Claims
Some coalition states may begin filing cases against Israeli officials under universal jurisdiction. Observing whether such cases proceed, or are blocked, is key. The coalition’s credibility depends heavily on whether legal pathways are tested effectively. - Civil Society and Protest Leverage
Domestic and transnational social movements (BDS, pro-Palestine activism) will continue to pressure governments and conventional institutions. They may amplify the coalition’s agenda, raise reputational costs, or expose hypocrisies (e.g. states pledging but continuing covert arms trade). - Coalition Durability
The crucial test will come if Israel or its sponsors respond with countermeasures. Will the coalition fracture under pressure? Will states rescind commitments to avoid economic costs? The early months to a year will show whether Bogotá was a moment or a turning point.
Significance: A Turning Point or Flash in the Pan?
The Bogotá coalition is ambitious in scale, framing, and purpose. It changes the rhetorical terrain by merging law and politics, not merely protest and condemnation. It has the potential to shift global norms on accountability and to make state complicity harder to ignore.
Yet its success hinges on execution, durability, and strategic coherence. The greater risk is that it becomes a symbolic flashpoint with limited follow-through — a coalition of good intentions rather than structural transformation.
Nonetheless, at a time when Western dominance in norm-setting is under strain, the coalition offers a model: issue-based, legally grounded, regionally inclusive. Whether this becomes a durable axis of “accountability internationalism” or a transient challenge remains to be seen.
Leave a Reply