header-logo header-logo

02 February 2024 / Marc Weller
Issue: 8057 / Categories: Features , Profession , International
printer mail-detail

South Africa v Israel: A dilemma for the ICJ

156462
As the court orders Israel to prevent genocidal acts, Marc Weller analyses the decision, the response & its implications
  • The court faced a dilemma in this highly political case. But it has decided a long list of cases involving the use of force between states.
  • The court did not formally conclude that Israel has engaged in acts of genocide. Rather, it found that South Africa could plausibly argue that the conduct falls within the ambit of the Genocide Convention.
  • Even though there was no cease-fire order, the case has important ramifications for the conflict.

International law has made the global headlines again. The eagerly anticipated preliminary measures order rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Gaza genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel has commanded world-wide attention. As could be expected, the decision has received a mixed reception.

The President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, immediately hailed the decision as a victory for international law, for his country and for Palestine.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll