ICJ Upholds South Africa’s Case Against Israel
(28 January 2024) - The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its interim ruling on the provision of emergency measures in Gaza at the Peace Palace last Friday. Deemed a “historic victory” by South Africa’s President Ramaphosa, the United Nations’ top court found a prima facie case of genocide against Israel, declining Israel’s request of dismissal. In its unprecedented ruling, the Court found favour in six of South Africa’s measures brought before the judicial panel, calling on Israel to “take all measures” against genocidal acts within the Gaza Strip. The significance of the ruling was exemplified by its timing, having fallen on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day. While the court did not explicitly call for an immediate ceasefire, the ICJ did find favour in South Africa’s primary charges, ordering that the State of Israel abide by the obligations of the Genocide Convention of 1948.
More specifically, the court instructed Israel to ensure that it take all measures to punish and prevent the encitement to commit genocide against Palestinians. A majority of 15 out of 17 judges voted in favour for the provision of emergency measures, stipulating an uninterrupted distribution of emergency aid into the Gaza Strip. The court additionally ordered that Israel take “effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts” in accordance with Article II and Article III of the convention. Within the order, the court acknowledged the attack in Israel and expressed that it was “gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages” that were abducted on October 7 and called for their immediate release. The ICJ also voted in accordance with South Africa’s request for a submission of a report within one month, outlining the measures Israel has taken in alignment with the ICJ’s order. It is of great importance to note that the court did not rule that Israel’s military operation against Hamas was genocidal but did not negate the possibility that its acts were genocidal in nature. Through the imposition of provisional emergency measures, the court noted that concerns over South Africa’s claims of explicit genocide within Gaza merit further review.
As such, the international response to the court’s ruling was varied. Nations such as South Africa, Spain, Scotland, Malaysia and Qatar welcomed the verdict. Human rights organisations and individuals alike deemed the ruling a “landmark decision”, noting the significance of the legally binding ruling. Palestine’s Foreign Ministry expressed their content toward the ruling, stating that it “should serve as a wake-up call for Israel and actors who enabled its entrenched impunity”. Britain, the United States and Canada expressed their respect for the court’s verdict, specifically in relation to the court’s mandate of uploading international law, but maintained Israel’s right to self-defence. In a video statement made shortly after the court’s response to South Africa’s case, Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu deemed the ruling “outrageous”. Soon after, Israel’s National Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir appeared to jeer at the top court, writing on the platform X, “Hague shmague”
The ICJ’s pronouncement is one of great significance, highlighting the shift of countries from the Global South and their role within international institutions. For example, South Africa and its legal team have been dubbed the “diplomatic spearhead of the Global South”, praising its initiative in testing the scales of international institutions. However, South Africa has not been exempt from criticism due to its evident foreign policy contradictions. From its inability to arrest the International Criminal Court (ICC)-convicted Sudanese President Bashir in 2015 for war crimes to its inconsistent position on the Russia-Ukraine war, South Africa must establish a clear and inadmissible stance on its domestic politics and international policy. It is evident that the ICJ’s ruling provides an additional layer of complexity to the current geopolitical sphere leading to a greater divergence within alliances between the East and West. African states find themselves in a double bind. While foreign policy remains rife with contradictions, questions and changes, South Africa requires careful calibration and calculation in the coming months post-ICJ judgement.
Image Credits: Remko De Waal/EPA, via Shutterstock | Edited by GorStra Team