On January 11 and 12, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) heard the case of South Africa v. Israel.
South Africa requested the application of the convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) in the Gaza Strip against the State of Israel on December 29.
As outlined by the ICJ’s unofficial press release, South Africa applied to the court for several provisional measures, including that Israel “immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza” as well as “take all reasonable measures within their power to prevent genocide.”
Israel rejected the charges and requested to remove the case from the General List, citing the applicant’s case as an “attempt to weaponize the term genocide against Israel” and an abrogation of “Hamas’ responsibility of the situation in Gaza.”
Following the two-day hearing, Honi Soit reported on the cases made by both parties, summarising South Africa’s case of a violation of the Genocide Convention and request of provisional measures as well as Israel’s defense response.
The world now awaits the Court’s judgement, which some speculate could come in the next few weeks. In the closing statement made by the ICJ’s President Joan Donoghue, a response to South Africa’s request for provisional measures will be delivered “as soon as possible.”
The ICJ, composed of 15 judges elected by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, is one of the six principal organs of the UN — designed to be the judicial body responsible for settling disputes according to international law.
The ICJ has dealt with approximately five cases pertaining to the Genocide Convention since its formal enactment in 1951 with 153 countries currently ratified or acceded by the legislation.
Importantly, the South Africa v Israel court hearing will not be ruling on whether Israel has committed genocide.
The outcome of this hearing is only regarding the enactment of provisional measures requested by South Africa.
A provisional measure is an interim order ordered by the ICJ to protect a right or issue of a party. Typically, these interim orders are temporary and require lengthy adjudication.
In this case, South Africa requested “the indication of provisional measures pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court.”
Representing Israel, Australian-born Israeli lawyer and diplomat, Dr Tal Becker, spoke to maintaining the “integrity of the Genocide Convention” and that South Africa’s application for provisional measures “should be dismissed for what they are — a libel, designed to deny Israel the right to defend itself” in the face of ongoing political and civilian devastation.
However, the main case of South Africa v Israel could take years to determine the claim of Genocide against Israel.
In 2007, a past Genocide Convention case regarding the Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro, referenced several times in the recent oral hearing, took approximately a decade to reach its final judgement.
During last week’s proceedings, South Africa also made reference to the failure of the international community, and by default the ICJ, to prevent the Bosnian, Rwandan and Rohingya genocides.
South Africa is now asking for the enactment of provisional measures to halt and prevent the further displacement and aggression against the Palestinian people.
Senior Advocate for the High Court of South Africa, Tembeka Ngckaitobi, spoke to the alleged crimes, “the evidence of genocidal intent is not only chilling, it is also overwhelming and incontrovertible” making it clear that the International community has “failed” the Palestinian people.
In recent times, the ICJ heard the case of Ukraine v. Russian Federation which was filed on February 26, 2022, two days after Russia’s first airstrike and ground invasion. Ukraine requested provisional measures as outlined in Article 41 of the convention with comparable grounds to South Africa’s case.
Twenty days later, the ICJ ordered the provisional measures stipulated by Ukraine with a 13-2 vote on March 16. On July 13, over 40 nations, including Australia, UK and USA, had issued a joint statement in support of the ICJ and Ukraine’s requests.
On December 29, 2023, South Africa filed the current case against Israel.The first hearing occurred 13 days after the case was brought to the ICJ and 96 days after the crisis began.
It is important to note that the ICJ’s decisions are not legally binding. Despite the ruling in favour of Ukraine’s provisional measures, the Russo-Ukraine war is still ongoing.
In a televised response made by Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, the IDF agenda and Israel-Hamas conflict will not be deterred by the ICJ and said “no one will stop us, not The Hague, not the axis of evil and not anyone else” referring to the allied militias.
Regardless, the incoming judgement is just the first stage of a lengthy legal adjudication fighting to bring an alleviation to the relentless suffering in Gaza.
Honi Soit will continue to report as new information breaks.