South Africa’s Case Against Israel at the ICJ: A Watershed Moment for International Law
South Africa’s decision to bring a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over alleged “genocidal acts” in Gaza has been hailed as a watershed moment for international law. The ICJ has confirmed that it has received an 84-page suit detailing the purported brutal practices of Israel, and a hearing is scheduled to take place on January 11 and 12.
Michelle Kelsall, a senior lecturer in international law at the SOAS University of London, believes that if the ICJ ruling finds a “plausible risk” of Israel committing genocidal acts, it would be a significant development in the push for a ceasefire agreement. Kelsall explains that even if the court does not determine that Israel is committing genocidal acts, the obligation to prevent such acts can still be invoked based on the evidence presented.
The evidence presented in the suit includes mass casualties, impediments to births due to damage to essential health services, destruction of homes, blockades preventing the provision of basic necessities, and widespread expulsions and displacement of Gazans. The suit argues that these actions are intended to bring about the destruction of Palestinians as a group, violating the Genocide Convention’s definition of genocide.
Statements by Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, are cited as evidence of genocidal intent. Netanyahu’s comparison of Palestinians to the biblical story of the Amalek nation, which God ordered Israelites to destroy, and his assertion that the fighting would be “deepened” despite the high civilian death toll, are seen as supporting the claim of genocide.
Mai El-Sadany, a human rights lawyer and director of the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, believes that the South African legal documentation is particularly important given the heightened disinformation around the war. She sees the case as significant in slowing the normalization of mass atrocities committed by Israel and sending a message that countries committing such atrocities can be brought before an international court.
The case against Israel could have implications beyond South Africa and Israel. Kelsall suggests that the ICJ’s ruling on obligations to prevent genocide could have ramifications for other states, including the US and the UK. The ICJ has previously stated that the obligation to prevent such crimes must take into account the geographical distance of the state concerned from the scene of the crimes and the strength of political connections and ties.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry has condemned the filing of the case as “despicable and contemptuous exploitation” of the ICJ. However, Israeli officials are taking the move seriously and have confirmed that they will defend their practices at the court in The Hague. This indicates the potential ramifications for the Israeli government, with suggestions that the nation might face sanctions as domestic pressure forces the hands of allies in London and Washington.
A ruling in favor of South Africa’s case could also put pressure on the Biden administration in this presidential election year. Sarang Shidore, director of the Washington-based Quincy Institute, believes that a ruling against Israel could have implications for the standing of the US. However, it remains to be seen how the Biden administration and key European allies will respond to the case at the ICJ.
In conclusion, South Africa’s case against Israel at the ICJ represents a significant moment for international law. The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for the push for a ceasefire agreement, as well as for other states’ obligations to prevent genocide. It remains to be seen how the ICJ will rule and how Israel’s allies will respond to the case.