The Israel Defense Hearing at the International Court of Justice on January 12, 2024 in The Hague, Netherlands.
Dursun Aydemir | Anatolia | Getty Images
Last month, the International Court of Justice ruled on South Africa’s legal case accusing Israel of genocide.
The trial began after the African country presented a case for emergency measures in Gaza and led to a two-day hearing with testimony from the South African and Israeli legal teams.
The court issued its preliminary ruling on January 26 with six legally binding provisions, including those ordering the Israeli army to: prevent actions that could be considered genocide in the besieged enclave; allow humanitarian aid into the Strip; punish incitement to genocide; submit monthly reports; and take action to protect Palestinians.
CNBC takes a look at what the next steps might be and how we got here.
What’s next?
In last month’s order, the International Court of Justice did not grant South Africa’s main request, which was to order Israel to suspend military airstrikes in Gaza and call for a permanent ceasefire.
Israel rejected allegations of genocide at the World Court and accused South Africa of being used as a legal cover for Hamas.
After the verdict, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the decision and said Israel would continue to defend itself and its citizens against Hamas while complying with international law. Israeli officials did not respond to a CNBC request for comment.
Cases under the Genocide Convention drag on for years in court – such as in the case of Serbia – and it took more than ten years for a final decision to be made.
Cases involving genocidal intent are among the most difficult cases to win – there must be evidence that the perpetrators had the premeditated intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
The ICJ has ordered Israel to submit a report this month describing how it is complying with the court’s orders and to preserve evidence of any acts of genocide.
Last week, Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defense minister, said Israel would not stop airstrikes on Gaza any time soon. Gallant, who has described Palestinians as “human animals,” was one of three officials whose previous statements were used by the South African legal team’s defense.
Francesca Albanese, U.N. special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, told CNBC last week that she was “uncomfortable not knowing anything about the history.”
“That’s why I know with absolute certainty that for 100 years, Palestinians have been consistently denied all three things: justice, human rights and freedom.”
Albanese said that whatever the outcome, the case made an important contribution to growing international pressure to end the war and was symbolic, adding that the allegations of genocide before the International Court of Justice were not without merit.
Vincent Magwenya, spokesman for South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, told CNBC that the country expects to continue to pursue the case at a high level.
“We are working together to ensure that the case is successful for the sake of peace in the region and for the benefit of many innocent people, women and children, young and old, who suffer from Israel’s decades-long occupation and genocide,” he said said.
How did we get here?
South Africa initiated proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice in December under the “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip.”
“As a nation that fought and defeated apartheid, we have a special obligation to advocate for justice and fundamental human rights for all people, everywhere,” Magwenya told CNBC on Sunday.
South Africa’s legal defense was heard in The Hague in the Netherlands on January 11 and Israel’s the following day.
“This commitment was the basis of our request to the International Court of Justice to put an end to the violence unleashed by Israel in the Gaza Strip,” Magwenya added.
Magwenya said that as a signatory to the 1948 Genocide Convention, the country has a responsibility to prevent acts of genocide wherever they occur. He added that their own past “demonstrates South Africa’s long history of unwavering solidarity with the Palestinians.”
Other countries that publicly supported South Africa’s case include Turkey, Jordan, Brazil, Colombia and Malaysia.
This comes as Israeli forces continue a military operation in the Gaza Strip that has so far claimed more than 27,000 lives, according to the Hamas-run Palestinian Health Ministry.
The court also said it was “deeply concerned” about the welfare of the Israeli hostages kidnapped by the Palestinian militant group Hamas during its terror attacks on October 7, more than 120 of whom remained in captivity as of Thursday. The World Court called for the immediate release of the hostages still in captivity.
Precedents
Although the ICJ can make demands on countries, as it has done in the past, it does not have the power to enforce them or rule on disputes between states.
On February 26, 2022, two days after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainian government filed a complaint with the World Court under the 1948 Genocide Convention, demanding that Russia order a cessation of military operations.
The following month, the ICJ issued a snap decision ordering Russia to halt military operations against its neighbor. Already in 2015, after an initial application was submitted in 1999, the court in its final judgment acquitted Serbia of the genocide of Bosnian Muslims in the Bosnian War of the 1990s and rejected Bosnia and Croatia’s request for reparations.
Source link
2024-02-09 06:07:45
www.cnbc.com