UN Commissions of Inquiry can document but not enforce. Critically examine their role in ensuring accountability for mass atrocities, with reference to the recent findings on the occupied Palestinian territories.

UN Commissions of Inquiry (CoIs) are independent fact-finding bodies. They can establish facts and name who is responsible, but they cannot arrest or punish anyone. In October 2026, the CoI on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, chaired by retired Indian judge Justice S. Muralidhar, told the UNGA Third Committee that genocide had continued "even after the so-called ceasefire" [1]. Its findings show what CoIs can do and where they stop.

Role: How CoIs Advance Accountability

• Authoritative record: over 75,000 Palestinians killed since 7 October 2023, including at least 21,500 children and 11,000 women [1]. A record like this makes denial harder.
• Evidence pipeline: evidence is gathered under protocols aligned with ICJ and ICC standards [1], so courts can use it later.
• Norms for new technology: on an AI-assisted tracking system, the Chair held that those who "exercise effective control" over it "remain accountable" [1]. This is the principle of meaningful human control.
• Duties of third states: members must "employ all means" to prevent and punish genocide [1].
• Even-handedness: it also flagged Palestinian security forces' "disproportionate force" [1].

Limits: Why Documentation Rarely Becomes Justice

• No access: Israel refuses to let the CoI visit the territory and does not comment on draft reports [1]. The CoI has to rely on remote evidence.
• Weakened courts: the Chair urged support for the ICC amid US sanctions on the Court [1].
• Non-compliance: the ICJ's July 2024 advisory opinion declared the occupation unlawful [2], yet the CoI still has to demand compliance [1].
• Contested legitimacy: Israel called the reports "historical fiction" and the US rejected the findings [1]. Even the UK holds that a formal genocide finding is for a competent court [1]. A CoI finding is a strong allegation, not a verdict.
• Political deadlock: enforcement depends on member states, which the CoI cannot compel.

CoIs are therefore necessary but not sufficient. They turn atrocities into evidence, but only courts and states can turn evidence into accountability. Several steps can close this gap: guaranteed access, protection for the ICC, use of universal jurisdiction, and binding rules on AI in warfare. India can lead by example by backing ICJ opinions while keeping its strategic ties with Israel. This would serve SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions) and the rules-based order India champions.