ICJ interim ruling on genocide case against Israel - Full hearing
ICJ interim ruling on genocide case against Israel - Full hearing
You're viewing a single thread.
9 comments
-
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)
Full text: Order of 26 January 2024
Individual judge opinions
- Declaration of Judge Xue
- Dissenting opinion of Judge Sebutinde
- Declaration of Judge Bhandari
- Declaration of Judge Nolte
- Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Barak
All the documents relating to this case are on its ICJ webpage
The full text of the operative clause of the Order reads as follows: “For these reasons, THE COURT , Indicates the following provisional measures:
(1) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
[...]
(2) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1 above;
[...]
(3) By sixteen votes to one, The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;
[...]
(4) By sixteen votes to one, The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip;
[...]
(5) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;
[...]
(6) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within one month as from the date of this Order.
omissions by "[...]" are just the names of each judge and whether they approved or dissented.
-
The one judge who voted against everything:
Her dissenting opinion concluded that the dispute in question was essentially political rather than legal and there was no plausible basis for finding genocidal intent on the part of Israel.
That phrase "genocidal intent" is interesting, and not something I think is reflected in international law. The actual case is summarised as:
South Africa considers Israel to be responsible for committing genocide in Gaza and for failing to prevent and punish genocidal acts. South Africa contends that Israel has also violated other obligations under the Genocide Convention, including those concerning “conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempted genocide and complicity in genocide
In any case, this decision is an initial stage about Israel's obligation to PREVENT genocide. So the dissent is not actually relevant until later, right?
9 comments