The highest court ICJ directed Israel to implement actions for the protection of Palestinians but refrained from mandating an immediate ceasefire.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a ruling ON 26th January 2024, instructing Israel to do everything in its power to prevent actions falling under the Genocide Convention. This decision comes in response to South Africa’s claim of genocide against Israel and involves nine provisional measures.
Even though the court didn’t grant South Africa’s plea for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, it did require Israel to permit the entry of essential services and humanitarian aid into the Palestinian area. The interim ruling establishes significant international legal obligations, and Judge Joan E. Donoghue, the court’s President, mandated Israel to provide a report within a month detailing the measures taken to ensure compliance.
Of notable importance, the top United Nations court acknowledged South Africa’s concerns about statements made by senior Israeli officials, which were deemed indicative of “genocidal intent.” Specifically, the court referred to Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant’s directive for a “complete siege” of Gaza and his remarks instructing troops to view their adversaries as “human animals.” These statements played a role in the court’s decision.
Whether Israel will follow the ruling is up for debate because the court doesn’t have the power to enforce it. A similar situation happened in March 2022 when the ICJ told Russia to stop its attack in Ukraine. Even though the order was legally binding, Russia chose to ignore it, and the fighting continued. However, current decision could strongly influence how people around the world see the situation.
In a long 84-page request, South Africa claims that Israel’s actions in Gaza break the rules of the Genocide Convention. This convention was created in 1948 after the terrible events of World War II and the Holocaust. Many countries, including South Africa in 1998 and Israel in 1950, have agreed to follow these rules. According to the ICJ, which is like the world’s court, preventing genocide is a really important international law that no one is allowed to break.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is separately investigating possible war crimes and crimes against humanity by both Hamas and Israel. South Africa alleges that Israel’s actions violate the Genocide Convention, and it seeks provisional measures to prevent further harm to the rights of the Palestinian people under this convention.
Seventy percent of the reported deaths are said to be women and children. It is further argued that Israel’s actions toward Palestinians in Gaza, conducted by its state organs, agents, and other individuals or entities following its instructions, show a “collective intent” for genocidal acts. Additionally, it is alleged that Israel is violating various aspects of international law, including the Geneva Conventions, by targeting places related to religion, education, art, science, historic monuments, hospitals, and locations where the sick and wounded are gathered. South Africa’s assertions are backed by reports and investigations from sources like the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Health Organization, Palestinian journalists, and several independent United Nations human rights experts.
South Africa’s assertion has garnered support from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, representing 57 African and Muslim-majority nations like Turkey and Malaysia, each expressing individual statements of backing. Bolivia, labeling the move as ‘historic,’ notably became the first Latin American country to support the ICJ case against Israel.
During a UN General Assembly session on January 9, Maldives, Namibia, and Pakistan also voiced their endorsement for the genocide case.
However, there are opposing nations, including the United States, where National Security spokesperson John Kirby deemed the lawsuit “meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis.” The European Union has chosen not to comment on the case.
The United Kingdom faces accusations of hypocrisy for rejecting South Africa’s appeal, despite having recently submitted detailed legal arguments to the ICJ supporting claims that Myanmar committed genocide against the Rohingya ethnic group.
The proceedings are intended to capture the perspectives of those usually unheard. In many of these cases, the individuals being represented are often vulnerable and marginalized, lacking a typical international platform. Being heard on a global stage could have a significant impact on them.
A favorable ruling might alter public opinion and increase political pressure on Israel to allow more aid into Gaza and ensure compliance with basic human rights.
South Africa’s decision to bring a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) demonstrates a brave step in addressing alleged genocide and violations of international law. International actions and legal proceedings, such as the one initiated by South Africa, have the potential to influence public opinion and exert political pressure on the involved parties.
However, the impact of such cases can vary, and resolving complex geopolitical conflicts often requires a multifaceted approach. It’s important to recognize the complexities inherent in diplomatic and legal processes, and the outcome of any case can depend on various factors.
In this context, South Africa’s bravery in pursuing legal action highlights its commitment to addressing issues it considers crucial on the international stage. The international community, comprised of various countries and organizations, may have diverse perspectives on the matter, contributing to the complexity of diplomatic and legal processes.
Sources:
1. ICJ orders Israel to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza
2. South Africa’s case against Israel at the ICJ: What are the allegations and what to expect?