(Daily Pont) — South Africa’s genocide case against Israel commenced with two days of public hearings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Thursday.
Pro-Palestine activists are hopeful that the World Court might intervene in Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, which has resulted in over 23,000 deaths since October 7, with around 10,000 being children. South Africa’s lawsuit, filed on December 29, accuses Israel of committing genocide, marking a significant precedent.
The International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, is the highest legal authority within the United Nations, resolving disputes between member states. Comprising 15 judges appointed through UN General Assembly and Security Council elections, the ICJ issues binding rulings that are not subject to appeal, though enforcement depends on the UNSC.
Several countries and organizations are backing South Africa’s case at the ICJ, including the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Malaysia, Turkey, Jordan, and Bolivia. Additionally, the Maldives, Namibia, and Pakistan support the cause.
South Africa’s accusations against Israel include genocide, violating the 1948 Genocide Convention, with charges ranging from large-scale killings of Palestinians, destruction of homes, expulsion and displacement, blockade on essential resources, to hindering Palestinian births by destroying crucial health services for pregnant women and infants.
South Africa urgently seeks provisional measures from the ICJ to prevent further Israeli crimes in Gaza. These emergency orders aim to protect Palestinian rights under the Genocide Convention.
The trial’s initial proceedings for provisional measures are expected to conclude in a few weeks, with the ICJ delivering a verdict shortly thereafter. However, the main case may extend over several years due to the meticulous legal process, involving written submissions, oral arguments, and counter-arguments. Experts estimate a final sentence in three to four years.
ICJ judges will decide the case through voting, and although they are expected to remain impartial, historical instances suggest alignment with their countries’ political stances. For example, in the March 2022 decision to provisionally order Russia out of Ukraine, judges from Russia and China voted against the resolution.
