Ruling on a case brought by South Africa, the court said Israel must ensure its forces did not commit genocide and take measures to improve the humanitarian situation for Palestinian civilians in the enclave.
In the ruling, 15 of the 17 judges on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) panel voted for emergency measures which covered most of what South Africa asked for, with the notable exception of ordering a halt to Israeli military action in Gaza
they need help for the many people who are starving there
#OpenRafahBorderNow #openrafahstopgenocide #Palestina
78. The Court considers that, with regard to the situation described above, Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, 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. The Court recalls that these acts fall within the scope of Article II of the Convention when they are committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a group as such (see paragraph 44 above). The Court further considers that Israel must ensure with immediate effect that its military forces do not commit any of the above-described acts.
79. The Court is also of the view that Israel must 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.
80. The Court further considers that Israel must 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.
81. Israel must also 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 Genocide Convention against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.
82. Regarding the provisional measure requested by South Africa that Israel must submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to its Order, the Court recalls that it has the power, reflected in Article 78 of the Rules of Court, to request the parties to provide information on any matter connected with the implementation of any provisional measures it has indicated. In view of the specific provisional measures it has decided to indicate, the Court considers that Israel must 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. The report so provided shall then be communicated to South Africa, which shall be given the opportunity to submit to the Court its comments thereon.
83. The Court recalls that its Orders on provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute have binding effect and thus create international legal obligations for any party to whom the provisional measures are addressed
@CIJ_ICJ‘s decision puts Israel on notice on the global stage. It‘s a binding order that is relevant to every single action Israel takes in Gaza from here on out. It‘s context that every journalist, CSO, advocate, state, and aid agency should be citing to going forward. (4)
Could the @CIJ_ICJ have done more? Absolutely. Could it have done less? Also yes.
But the strength and impact of these provisional measures will be about how we use them and how we fold them into what‘s next — politically, legally, and in advocacy. (5)
But today isn‘t just about the provisional measures issued by @CIJ_ICJ, it‘s about the fact that the court described what was happening to the people of Gaza in plain terms. It cited to Israeli official statements dehumanizing Palestinians + justifying its behavior. (6)
In the face of erasure, misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda for over +100 days, the world‘s highest court today, @CIJ_ICJ, created a platform for historical record to be preserved and for Palestinian lived experiences to be platformed.
(Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.)
Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(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;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
(…)
Article IX
Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.
Israel must take any measures to prevent and punish any incitement of genocidal statements against the Palestinian population.
Israel must take effective measures to provide relief to Palestinians.
It must stop the destruction of infrastructure.
The court states that Israel must submit a report one month from the judgement to show it has complied with the provisional measures. The provisional measures have binding effect.
Israel must share the report with RSA.
The court deems it necessary to emphasise that all parties are bound to international humanitarian law. The court mentions those abducted by Hamas – although mentions nothing about Palestinians political prisoners.
15-2 the judges ruled, that Israel must take all measures to stop acts that contravene Art 2 of the genocide convention.
Court notes 93% of the population of Gaza is facing critical levels of hunger.
Court notes unsanitary UNWRA refugee camps have become home to 1.4 million people.
Court also notes the specific devastation on children, and that this has been compounded, citing UNWRA, who claim that demonising language has been used by Israel.
Court cites the words of Israeli official who calls Palestinians animals….
South Africa will learn if its application for provisional measures against the State of Israel at the International Court of Justice was successful.
It’s likely to be a moment of high drama at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Peace Palace in The Hague on Friday afternoon when Judge Joan E Donoghue, the president of the court, announces the decision of the 17 judges on South Africa’s request to the court to issue provisional measures against Israel to stop its alleged genocide in Gaza.
International Relations and Cooperation Minister Naledi Pandor will be in the court as the head of a South African delegation and representatives of Israel and Palestine will surely be in the court too, and probably outside it.
The ruling comes at an early stage in South Africa’s case alleging that Israel’s military action in its war with Hamas in Gaza amounts to genocide. Israel vehemently rejects the accusation and has asked the court to throw out the case.
South Africa has asked it to issue nine emergency measures, which act like a restraining order while the court hears the case in full, which could take years.
Pretoria wants the court to order a halt to Israeli military action in Gaza, allowing in more humanitarian aid and for Israel to investigate and prosecute possible violations.
The court is not bound to follow South Africa‘s requests and could order its own measures if it finds it has jurisdiction at this stage of the case.
Der Internationale Gerichtshof (IGH) wird am Freitag seine Entscheidung über einen Eilantrag Südafrikas verkünden, im Gaza-Krieg einen sofortigen Waffenstillstand anzuordnen.
Südafrika hatte vor zwei Wochen eine Klage wegen Völkermords gegen Israel eingereicht und in dem Eilverfahren als vorläufige Maßnahme einen sofortigen Rechtsschutz für die Palästinenser gefordert.
Worüber werden die Richter heute entscheiden? Zunächst geht es um einen Eilantrag Südafrikas. Das hatte acht konkrete Massnahmen gefordert, um die Rechte der Palästinenser zu schützen. Und dazu gehört auch, dass die Richter das sofortige Ende der militärischen Handlungen anordnen sollen.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, delivers its Order on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by South Africa in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) on 26 January 2024, at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the seat of the Court. Session held under the presidency of Judge Joan E. Donoghue, President of the Court.
THE HAGUE, 24 January 2024. On Friday 26 January 2024, the International Court of Justice
will deliver its Order on the Request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by South Africa in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). A public sitting will take place at 1 p.m. at the Peace Palace in The Hague, during which Judge Joan E. Donoghue, the President of the Court, will read the Court’s Order.