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;
© 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?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=FRsprNTNiNM
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Removed by mod
If you’d listen to the hearing you’d realize that the court is not only seeing serious concerns about the immediate risk for Palestinian rights protected under the genocide convention, but also calls out genocidal rhetoric by Israeli senior officials in particular prime minister Netanyahu, president Herzog and defence minister Gallant.
What you are claiming in regards to the courts ruling is a deliberate lie, and a despicable slander of South Africa and by extension of how you talk about the courts ruling, slander of international order as a whole.
Removed by mod
their case was made up entirely. The ruling tells that.
If the case was made up, the court would have thrown it out. Instead it confirmed, that Palestinians are at serious risk of genocide by Israel, which is why it ordered measures to preven genocide.
Removed by mod
That’s not how genocide works and this is asymmetric warfare of an occupying force onto the occupied, not a normal war. The south africa case is very detailed and explicit about each five points in the genocide Geneva convention.
