_edited.jpg)
South Africa accuses Israel of genocide in Gaza, leading to a case at the International Court of Justice. The court orders provisional measures, including preventing genocide acts and ensuring humanitarian aid, while Israel claims the defence against Hamas. The decision sparks geopolitical implications and reputational considerations, with uncertainties about concrete effects on Gaza's population and the ongoing conflict.
The International Court of Justice will have to analyze the charges of genocide in the Gaza Strip brought by South Africa against Israel. Let's take a step back to December 29th; South Africa sent a document to the International Court of Justice containing accusations of genocide by Israel against the population of the Gaza Strip. In particular, this document emphasises that the Israeli government is not only killing Palestinian citizens at home but is also causing serious physical and mental harm to the population, calculated to provoke their destruction. All these actions fall under those prohibited by the 1948 International Genocide Convention, of which Israel is a signatory along with South Africa.
South Africa is historically linked to the Palestinian cause, partly because of the close relationship between Nelson Mandela and Arafat, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Today, this spirit of solidarity is still alive. Another reason is the geopolitical context: South Africa has gradually distanced itself from the Western world in recent years, aligning more with major powers such as China and Russia. This geopolitical calculation of attacking Israel surely has symbolic value, as Israel is part of the Western alignment.
The Israeli government responded to South Africa's accusations by calling the case unfounded but decided to appear before the International Court of Justice, the highest judicial body of the United Nations established in 1945 to address disputes between states (not to be confused with the International Criminal Court, which deals with war crimes committed by individuals, in states that have ratified it). During the first hearing at the court's headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands, South Africa's lawyers presented the accusation against Israel. Israel, in its defence, invoked legitimate defence against Hamas, which, according to Israel's lawyers, is directly and indirectly responsible for what is happening in the strip in recent months.
The decision by the International Court of Justice confirms that there is enough evidence to proceed with the case and has also ordered some provisional measures. These are emergency orders to prevent the situation from worsening while the court examines the case, especially since the proceedings can take years before a verdict. However, no ceasefire has been imposed on Israel, accused of the crime of genocide against the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip.
The International Court of Justice has decided that Israel must implement some of the provisional measures requested by South Africa, including preventing acts of genocide, ensuring immediate humanitarian assistance to the population, blocking and punishing all forms of incitement to genocide, and preserving evidence of any genocide that could be used during the trial. However, a ceasefire, which would have been the most concrete action pushed by the South African accusation, has not been imposed.
The court has ruled that Israel has one month to implement the measures, but it is not yet clear what the concrete effects on the fate of the Gaza population and the outcome of the war may be. The court issues binding judgments, but it does not have concrete tools to ensure that its decisions are implemented, so Israel could decide to ignore future decisions. A reputational issue could prompt the country to consider future assessments, not to worsen international diplomatic positions, which are already significant pressures on the country. If Israel does nothing of what has been asked, the National Security Council could vote on a resolution to ask the Israeli government to respect the decision of the Court. It could also impose punitive actions against Israel, such as economic sanctions, and arms import embargoes. However, this scenario is unlikely, given that, in any case, the United States has the power to block council decisions using the veto.
References
Ceran, M. (n.d.). Israele in aula per rispondere alle accuse di Genocidio a Gaza. The Essential.
Retrieved from https://open.spotify.com/episode/0EN9PvXU51EcrxqcNDOHaR?si=c277bc87964a4e6e
Ceran, M. (n.d.). La corte internazionale di Giustizia ha ordinato ad Israele di impedire atti di Genocidio a Gaza. The Essential.
Retrieved from https://open.spotify.com/episode/6VhGDB3tgp7TNZYD9nLwpr?si=3c19d7d1606d4e98