Unpacking the Int'l Court of Justice Judgment in South Africa v Israel (Genocide Case) – Just Security

by Ryan Goodman and Siven Watt
January 26, 2024
Expert Backgrounder, genocide, Genocide Convention, International Court of Justice (ICJ), Israel-Hamas War, South Africa v. Israel (ICJ)
by Ryan Goodman and Siven Watt
January 26, 2024
On Friday, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its Order in the case brought by South Africa against Israel under the Genocide Convention. Below we provide some context to understand the judgment. 
[Editor’s note: Stay tuned: Just Security will have significant coverage later today, including (1) a roundup of expert views, (2) analysis of different countries’ responses, and (3) a podcast with Professors Oona Hathaway, Adil Haque, and Yuval Shany with host Paras Shah. Catch up to speed with our past coverage of the ICJ case and the Israel-Hamas War.] 
1. A decision not about whether Israel is committing genocide
The Court stated explicitly that it is not deciding on the merits whether Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide. As the Court said in a previous case at the provisional measures phase of proceedings, “The Court is not called upon, for the purposes of its decision on the Request for the indication of provisional measures, to establish the existence of breaches of the Genocide Convention” (Gambia v. Myanmar 2020, para. 44). The Court also repeated today language from Gambia v, Myanmar:  “The Court is not called upon to determine definitively whether the rights which South Africa wishes to see protected exist; it need only decide whether the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection, are plausible.” The Court held that “as least some of the rights claimed by South Africa” met the test of plausibility (para. 54).
In contrast, determination of whether Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide is for the “merits” phase of the proceedings – which will likely occur years from now – after Israel has the opportunity to raise “preliminary objections” to jurisdiction and the Court decides on that matter, after both parties have filed additional briefs and other States have submitted written pleadings staking out their positions on the facts and the law. (Before today, a handful of States already said they would intervene in later proceedings – including Germany in favor of Israel, and Bangladesh, Jordan, and Nicaragua in favor of South Africa.)
At the same time, the Court at this early stage, in deciding whether to issue emergency measures, must assess if there is “the existence of a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights protected under the [Genocide] Convention” (Gambia v. Myanmar 2020, para. 74). The Court found that Israeli conduct in the Gaza Strip met that test (paras. 66 & 74). The Court said that Israel’s actions to minimize harm to civilians and to respond to incitement did not sufficiently remove the risk of irreparable harm (para 73).
Friday’s opinion was a far easier hurdle for South Africa to clear – based on a very low standard of proof – compared to the standard of proof that will be required were the Court to reach the merits phase. This is true of any ICJ case. It is especially true of a case about genocide, for which the Court has imposed the highest standard of proof at the final merits stage.
Judge Greenwood described the low standard of proof (and the potentially temporary nature of the Court’s findings) at this initial stage of proceedings (in Georgia v. Russia 2011): 
“I do not consider that the Court’s … Order regarding provisional measures of protection operates to constrain the approach which the Court should take in the present phase of the proceedings. … Requests for the indication of provisional measures of protection are considered as a matter of urgency, as required by Article 74 of the Rules of Court, without the opportunity for the consideration of extensive evidence or the detailed analysis of legal issues which can be undertaken in later phases of the proceedings. The jurisdictional threshold which the applicant has to cross is, accordingly, set quite low and any ruling — whether as to law or fact — which the Court makes at the provisional measures stage of a case is necessarily provisional.”
Greenwood explained that the reason for the provisional nature of the ruling at this stage is due to the “matter of urgency” that gives rise to expedited proceedings. That factor is present in the current case, where South Africa asked the Court to issue provisional measures “as a matter of extreme urgency” (§ 144), and the judges acted with great dispatch. The Court held public hearings within two weeks of Israel’s initial application, and issued today’s judgment within two weeks of those public hearings.
At the merits stage of determining whether genocide is occuring, the Court imposes the highest, almost insurmountable, standard of proof. In Bosnia v. Serbia (2007), the International Court of Justice stated that: “for a pattern of conduct to be accepted as evidence of its existence, it would have to be such that it could only point to the existence of such intent” (para. 373). That is, genocidal intent must be “the only inference that could reasonably be drawn from the acts in question” (Croatia v. Serbia (2015), para. 148). In Bosnia v. Serbia (para. 209) and reiterated in Croatia v. Serbia (para. 178), the Court stated, “claims against a State involving charges of exceptional gravity must be proved by evidence that is fully conclusive.”
Since the LeGrand case in 2001, the Court has asserted that its orders for provisional measures are binding. The Court noted today that the provisional measures “need not be identical” to those requested by South Africa. It is especially notable which provisional measures the Israeli ad hoc judge, Aaron Barak supported. It is also notable that the Court did not order the first provisional measure requested by South Africa, namely, calling on the ICJ to order that “the State of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza” (South Africa Application, para. 144). South Africa had also requested the Court to identify South Africa’s own obligations – as a third party State – to prevent genocide and proposed the Court include South Africa in the provisional measures in that regard. The Court made no reference to South Africa’s obligations in its discussion of provisional measures.

The Court required Israel:
1) By 15 votes to 2: Refrain from acts under the Genocide Convention
“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 the Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article 2 of the 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.” 
AGAINST: Judge Julia Sebutinde (Uganda) and Judge ad hoc Aaron Barak (Israel)
Note-1: Some commentators have noted that this first provisional measure does not reference intent. However, the Court does refer to Israel taking these steps “in accordance with its obligations under” the Genocide Convention, and the ICJ earlier stated in its Order that “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” (para. 78). 
Note-2: The Court’s language on the provisional measure closely mirrors South Africa’s proposed language. In its application, South Africa proposed: “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 the Palestinian people as a group protected by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, desist from the commission of any and all acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to the 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.” This language also closely mirrors the provisional measure ordered by the Court in Gambia v. Myanmar (para. 79).
2) By 16 votes to 1: Prevent and Punish Incitement to Genocide
“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.” 
AGAINST: Julia Sebutinde (Uganda)
3) By 16 votes to 1 – Take effective measures to allow humanitarian assistance 
“The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures. to ensure the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”
AGAINST: Judge Julia Sebutinde (Uganda) 
4) By 15 votes to 2 – Take effective measures to prevent destruction of evidence 
“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 the Convention.
AGAINST: Judge Julia Sebutinde (Uganda) and Judge ad hoc Aaron Barak (Israel)
5) By 15 votes to 2 – Submit a report to Court on compliance with all measures within one month
“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 the order”
AGAINST: Judge Julia Sebutinde (Uganda) and Judge ad hoc Aaron Barak (Israel)
The Judges of the Court
President Joan Donoghue (United States)
Vice-President Kirill Gevorgian (Russia)
Peter Tomka (Slovakia)
Ronny Abraham (France)
Mohamed Bennouna (Morocco)
Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf (Somalia)
Xue Hanquin (China)
Julia Sebutinde (Uganda)
Dalveer Bhandari (India)
Patrick Lipton Robinson (Jamaica)
Nawaf Salam (Lebanon)
Iwasawa Yuji (Japan)
Georg Nolte (Germany)
Hilary Charlesworth (Australia)
Leonardo Nemer Caldeira Brant (Brazil) 
Judges ad hoc
Aaron Barak (Israel)
Dikgang Ernest Moseneke (South Africa)
Expert Backgrounder, genocide, Genocide Convention, International Court of Justice (ICJ), Israel-Hamas War, South Africa v. Israel (ICJ)
All-source, public repository of congressional hearing transcripts, government agency documents, digital forensics, social media analysis, public opinion surveys, empirical research, more.
by Just Security
Jan 26th, 2024
by Ryan Goodman and Siven Watt
Jan 26th, 2024
by Norman L. Eisen, Ryan Goodman, Siven Watt and Francois Barrilleaux
Jan 25th, 2024
by Steven Katz and John Ramming Chappell
Jan 25th, 2024
by Vadim Prokhorov
Jan 24th, 2024
by Thomas Carothers
Jan 22nd, 2024
by Paloma van Groll
Jan 19th, 2024
by Norman L. Eisen, Ryan Goodman, Siven Watt, Francois Barrilleaux, Sasha Matsuki and Arava Rose
Jan 13th, 2024
by Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr. and David Bernell
Jan 12th, 2024
by Clara Apt
Jan 11th, 2024
by Sean Murphy
Jan 10th, 2024
by Joshua Matz and Laurence H. Tribe
Jan 10th, 2024
by Norman L. Eisen, Matthew A. Seligman and Joshua Kolb
Jan 9th, 2024
by Bruce Hoffman and Jacob Ware
Jan 8th, 2024
by Meghan Conroy and Justin Hendrix
Jan 6th, 2024
by Samuel Issacharoff
Jan 5th, 2024
by Kayla Blomquist and Keegan McBride
Jan 4th, 2024
by Amichai Cohen and Yuval Shany
Jan 2nd, 2024
by Megan Corrarino
Dec 29th, 2023
by Wa’el Alzayat and Jeremy Konyndyk
Dec 22nd, 2023
by Brianna Rosen
Dec 15th, 2023
by Jasmine D. Cameron, Judge Dariusz Mazur and Anna Wójcik
Dec 12th, 2023
by Jane Stromseth
Dec 2nd, 2023
by Clara Apt
Nov 30th, 2023
by Tess Bridgeman and Ryan Goodman
Nov 28th, 2023
by Elizabeth Goitein and Noah Chauvin
Nov 27th, 2023
by Faiza Patel
Nov 21st, 2023
by Shahed Ghoreishi
Nov 16th, 2023
by Arthur Holland Michel
Nov 13th, 2023
by Tom Joscelyn, Norman L. Eisen and Fred Wertheimer
Nov 10th, 2023
by Karen Smith
Nov 9th, 2023
by John Ramming Chappell, Annie Shiel, Seth Binder, Elias Yousif, Bill Monahan and Amanda Klasing
Nov 8th, 2023
by Elizabeth Goitein and Noah Chauvin
Nov 7th, 2023
by Daniel Balson and Jane Buchanan
Nov 7th, 2023
by Dr. Hiba Alamin, Dr. Hafeez Abdelhafeez and Dr. Abdallah Tom
Nov 3rd, 2023
by Fionnuala Ní Aoláin
Nov 2nd, 2023
by Justin Hendrix
Nov 1st, 2023
by Alexander Bellamy
Oct 31st, 2023
by Janina Dill
Oct 26th, 2023
by Rebecca Barber
Oct 24th, 2023
by Rachel Levinson-Waldman and José Guillermo Gutiérrez
Oct 19th, 2023
by Brianna Rosen
Oct 18th, 2023
by Simon Chesterman
Oct 18th, 2023
by Ryan Goodman, Michael W. Meier and Tess Bridgeman
Oct 17th, 2023
by Tess Bridgeman
Oct 13th, 2023
by Nora Benavidez
Oct 13th, 2023
by Tom Dannenbaum
Oct 11th, 2023
by David Aaron
Oct 11th, 2023
by Brianna Rosen and Viola Gienger
Oct 9th, 2023
by Maksym Vishchyk and Jeremy Pizzi
Oct 6th, 2023
by Nathan Kohlenberg and Joshua Rudolph
Oct 5th, 2023
by George Croner
Oct 4th, 2023
by Brian Finucane
Oct 4th, 2023
by Brianna Rosen
Oct 3rd, 2023
by Robert S. Taylor
Sep 27th, 2023
by Gwendolyn Whidden, Katherine Fang and Clara Apt
Sep 27th, 2023
by Tess Bridgeman
Sep 26th, 2023
by Brian Finucane
Sep 25th, 2023
by Tess Bridgeman, Ryan Goodman and Megan Corrarino
Sep 22nd, 2023
by Brian Finucane and Heather Brandon-Smith
Sep 18th, 2023
by Norman L. Eisen and Tom Joscelyn
Sep 15th, 2023
by Eugene R. Fidell
Sep 15th, 2023
by Jordan Street and Ilya Jones
Sep 14th, 2023
by Harold Hongju Koh
Sep 12th, 2023
by Brianna Rosen
Sep 11th, 2023
by Harold Hongju Koh
Sep 11th, 2023
by Jane McAdam
Sep 5th, 2023
by Morgan Moon and Jon Lewis
Sep 1st, 2023
by Terry Rockefeller
Aug 31st, 2023
by Patrick C. Toomey, Sarah Taitz and Kia Hamadanchy
Aug 30th, 2023
by Suzanne Nossel
Aug 28th, 2023
by Ryan Goodman, Norman L. Eisen, Siven Watt, Allison Rice, Francois Barrilleaux, Beth Markman and Michael Nevett
Aug 25th, 2023
by Faiza Patel and Harsha Panduranga
Aug 25th, 2023
by Ciara Torres-Spelliscy
Aug 24th, 2023
by Ioannis Kouvakas
Aug 22nd, 2023
by Maksym Vishchyk
Aug 21st, 2023
by Sareta Ashraph
Aug 21st, 2023
by Maksym Vishchyk
Aug 18th, 2023
by Norman L. Eisen, Joshua Kolb, Joshua Stanton, Andrew Warren and Siven Watt
Aug 16th, 2023
by Brian Finucane
Aug 16th, 2023
by Erica J. Hashimoto
Aug 15th, 2023
by Mariana Olaizola Rosenblat
Aug 15th, 2023
by Brian Finucane
Aug 14th, 2023
by Stephany Caro Mejia
Aug 9th, 2023
by Owiso Owiso and Sharon Nakandha
Aug 9th, 2023
by Laurence H. Tribe
Aug 8th, 2023
by Erin Sikorsky and Admiral Sam Locklear (Ret.)
Aug 8th, 2023
by Jonathan Panikoff
Aug 7th, 2023
by Tom Joscelyn
Aug 3rd, 2023
by Caroline D. Krass
Jul 31st, 2023
by Tess Bridgeman and Ryan Goodman
Jul 31st, 2023
by Ryan Goodman and Andrew Weissmann
Jul 30th, 2023
by Tom Dannenbaum
Jul 28th, 2023
by Alison Bisset
Jul 28th, 2023
by Elizabeth Goitein
Jul 27th, 2023
by Chiara Giorgetti and Patrick Pearsall
Jul 27th, 2023
by Ryan Goodman
Jul 27th, 2023
by George Croner and James Petrila
Jul 26th, 2023
by Faiza Patel and Ivey Dyson
Jul 26th, 2023
by Mark Nevitt
Jul 25th, 2023
by Gwendolyn Whidden, Katherine Fang and Clara Apt
Sep 27th, 2023
by Clara Apt
Jan 11th, 2024
by Karl Mihm, Jacob Apkon and Sruthi Venkatachalam
Jan 30th, 2023
by Clara Apt and Katherine Fang
Nov 18th, 2022
by Noah Bookbinder, Norman L. Eisen, Debra Perlin, E. Danya Perry, Jason Powell, Donald Simon, Joshua Stanton and Fred Wertheimer
Oct 27th, 2022
by Gwendolyn Whidden
Oct 31st, 2023
by Brianna Rosen
Oct 18th, 2023
by Brianna Rosen
Sep 11th, 2023
by Just Security
Jul 17th, 2023
by Just Security
May 9th, 2023
by Paul R. Williams, Milena Sterio, Yvonne Dutton, Alexandra Koch, Lilian Waldock, Floriane Lavaud, Ashika Singh and Isabelle Glimcher
Feb 13th, 2023
by Eileen B. Hershenov and Ryan B. Greer
Jan 26th, 2023
by Ambassador Peter Mulrean (ret.) and William J. Hawk
Jan 4th, 2023
by Clara Apt and Katherine Fang
Nov 18th, 2022
by Amanda L. White Eagle
Oct 10th, 2022
by Brianna Rosen
Oct 25th, 2022
by Oona A. Hathaway
Sep 20th, 2022
by Tess Bridgeman and Brianna Rosen
Mar 24th, 2022
by Nasir A. Andisha and Marzia Marastoni
Aug 15th, 2022
by Megan Corrarino
Feb 18th, 2022
by Mary B. McCord
Jan 24th, 2022
by Emily Berman, Tess Bridgeman, Megan Corrarino, Ryan Goodman and Dakota S. Rudesill
Jan 20th, 2022
by Laura Brawley, Antara Joardar and Madhu Narasimhan
Oct 29th, 2021
by Leila Nadya Sadat
Sep 13th, 2021
by Tess Bridgeman, Rachel Goldbrenner and Ryan Goodman
Sep 7th, 2021
by Just Security
Jul 19th, 2021
by Kate Brannen
Jun 30th, 2021
by Fionnuala Ní Aoláin and Kate Brannen
Jun 14th, 2021
by Steven J. Barela and Mark Fallon
Jun 1st, 2021
Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) is co-editor-in-chief of Just Security and Anne and Joel Ehrenkranz Professor of Law at New York University School of Law.
Siven Watt (@SivenWatt) is a Legal Fellow at Just Security.
Send A Letter To The Editor
by Adil Ahmad Haque, Oona A. Hathaway, Yuval Shany, Paras Shah and Clara Apt
Jan 26th, 2024
by Just Security
Jan 26th, 2024
by Mary Szarkowicz
Jan 26th, 2024
by Chile Eboe-Osuji
Jan 24th, 2024
by Rosa-Lena Lauterbach
Jan 23rd, 2024
by John Ramming Chappell and Paras Shah
Jan 19th, 2024
by Gaiane Nuridzhanian and Carrie McDougall
Jan 18th, 2024
by Nicholas Rostow
Jan 17th, 2024
by Yuval Shany and Amichai Cohen
Jan 16th, 2024
by John Ramming Chappell and Sarah Harrison
Jan 16th, 2024
by Norman L. Eisen, Siven Watt and Joshua Kolb
Jan 15th, 2024
by Adil Ahmad Haque
Jan 15th, 2024
Just Security is based at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law.

source

About The Author

admin

See author's posts