Explainer: The Legal and Practical Impacts of the ICJ Genocide Case Against Israel Features
rquevenco / Pixabay
Explainer: The Legal and Practical Impacts of the ICJ Genocide Case Against Israel

On Friday, Jan. 26, a panel of 17 judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its ruling on South Africa’s request for the indication of provisional measures submitted in the landmark case: Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). Although this is not the first case involving the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the “Genocide Convention”) to come before the ICJ, it is the first time the ICJ has been asked to decide whether Israel is violating it. Strangely, the three parties involved in the case—South Africa, Israel and Palestine—all welcomed the ICJs’ ruling. This begs several questions: What is the ICJ? What did the ICJ decide? Will Israel respect the ICJ’s decision? What happens if Israel ignores the ICJ’s decision?

What is the ICJ?

The ICJ was established by the United Nations (UN) Charter in June 1945 and serves as the UN’s  top court. Article 92 of the UN Charter provides that the ICJ “shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations” and shall function in accordance with the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The court is based in The Hague (Netherlands) and is composed of 15 judges elected for nine-year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council.

Only states may be parties in cases before the court. In terms of its mandate, Article 36(1) states that the jurisdiction of the court comprises “all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.” Article 41(1) of the statute empowers the court, in any case before it, “to indicate, if it considers that circumstances so require, any provisional measures which ought to be taken to preserve the respective rights of either party.”

What Triggered The Present Legal Action?

At its core, the case is about the nature, scope and extent of Israel’s military operations in Gaza since the heinous October 7, 2023 attack by the terrorist group Hamas. To date, about  28,000 people have died in Gaza and millions have been displaced since Israel launched its counter-offensive. By every account, the humanitarian Situation in Gaza is very dire. The fundamental question before the ICJ is whether Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to violations of its obligations under the Genocide Convention. On December 29, 2023, the Republic of South Africa in accordance with Articles 36 (1) and 40 of the statute of the court and Article 38 of the Rules of Court, instituted proceedings against Israel concerning alleged violations by Israel of its obligations under the Genocide Convention. Although the primary and fundamental question before the ICJ is whether Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to violations of its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in its application instituting proceedings, South Africa specifically requested the court to grant specified provisional measures in order to “protect against further, severe and irreparable harm to the rights of the Palestinian people under the Genocide Convention” and “to ensure Israel’s compliance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention not to engage in genocide, and to prevent and to punish genocide.”

What Exactly Did the Court Decide?        

So, what did the Court decide? First, contrary to Israel’s assertion, the court concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear the case pursuant to Article IX of the Genocide Convention. Second, the court concluded, prima facie, that South Africa had standing to submit the dispute with Israel concerning alleged violations of obligations under the Genocide Convention to it. Third, and most significantly, the court ordered several provisional measures. Among other things, the court ordered Israel,

  • By fifteen votes to two, “to take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of the Genocide Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  • By fifteen votes to two, to ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts within the scope of Article II of the Genocide Convention;
  • By sixteen votes to one, to “take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;”
  • By sixteen votes to one, to “take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip” and
  • By fifteen votes to two, to “take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.”

How Significant is the Court’s Order?

The court’s order is very significant. Although the court did not order a ceasefire, if fully implemented, the decision could mean the end or scaling down of Israel’s military operations in Gaza and, as Amnesty International put it, “could help protect the Palestinian people in the occupied Gaza Strip from further suffering and irreparable harm.” By virtue of Article 60 of the Statute, judgments of the ICJ are final, without appeal, and binding. This means that Israel cannot overturn the court’s January 26 order even if it wanted to. Not even the UN Security Council has the power to overturn or veto a decision of the ICJ.  Although highly significant, this is only an interim decision. This court is yet to rule on the fundamental question whether nor not Israel violated the Genocide Convention.

How Will the Court’s Order be Monitored?

The ICJ does not have monitoring or enforcement capabilities. However, by fifteen votes to two, the court ordered Israel to submit a report to the court “on all measures taken to give effect to its Order within one month as from the date of the Order.” Whether Israel will submit a report by February 26, 2024, and how thorough any such report will be, remains to be seen. However, there is not much the court can do if Israel either fails to submit the requested report or submits a very scanty report.

Will Israel Respect the ICJ’s Opinion?

The court’s order is a binding legal obligation. Under Article 94(1) of the UN Charter “[e]ach Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.” However, Israel might not respect the January 26 order. Initial reaction from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately after the ruling was not encouraging. “We will continue to do what is necessary to defend our country and defend our people,” Netanyahu reportedly said immediately after the ruling. To Netanyahu, “[t]he charge of genocide leveled against Israel is not only false, it’s outrageous, and decent people everywhere should reject it.” For its part, the South African Government “hopes that Israel will not act to frustrate the application of this Order, as it has publicly threatened to do, but that it will instead act to comply with it fully, as it is bound to do.”

The pressure is certainly on Israel to respect the court’s ruling. “The Israeli government must comply with the ICJ’s ruling immediately” Amnesty International declared in a January 26 press release.  According to Amnesty International, “All states – including those who were critical of or opposed South Africa’s submission of the genocide case – have a clear duty to ensure these measures are implemented.” To Amesty International, world leaders “must signal their respect for the Court’s legally binding decision and do everything in their power to uphold their obligation to prevent genocide.” The European Union (EU), in a press release, “reaffirm[ed] its continuing support” to the ICJ. “Orders of the International Court of Justice are binding on the parties and they must comply with them,” the European Commission said in the statement. “The European Union expects their full, immediate and effective implementation,” it added.

What If Israel Fails to Comply?

Unfortunately, if Israel fails to comply with the order, all roads will inevitably lead back to the Security Council. Article 94(2) of the United Nations (UN) Charter stipulates that “If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment” (emphasis).  Pursuant to Article 41(2) of the court’s statute, the Security Council will be formally notified of the court’s decision. How the Security Council will respond is anyone’s guess. The problem of course is that because of the veto powers of the Security Council’s five permanent members, it is unlikely that the Security Council will be willing or able to enforce the January 26 Order. Not surprisingly, in a statement released immediately after the ICJ’s decision, South Africa asserted that “[t]he veto power wielded by individual states cannot be permitted to thwart international justice, not least in light of the ever-worsening situation in Gaza.”

Although the ICJ’s decisions are final and are binding, instances of non-compliance exist. For example, Russia is yet to implement the ICJ’s provisional order in the case: Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). In response to Ukraine’s request for the indication of provisional measures, the court, in its Order of 16 March 2022, ordered the Russian Federation to “immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine.” The court also ordered Russia to “ensure that any military or irregular armed units which may be directed or supported by it, as well as any organizations and persons which may be subject to its control or direction, take no steps in furtherance of the military operations” commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine.

So, What Next?

What next for the Palestinians caught up in the ongoing war? What next for the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on October 7? What next for international law and the international legal order? Too many questions and very few answers, unfortunately.

Professor Uche Ewelukwa Ofodile (SJD, Harvard) is a Senior Fellow of the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. She holds the E.J. Ball Endowed Chair at the University of Arkansas School of Law where she has taught a broad range of courses including Public International Law.

THIS DAY @ LAW

Nixon nominated Harrold Carswell to the US Supreme Court

On January 19, 1970, President Richard Nixon nominated Judge G. Harrold Carswell of the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to the US Supreme Court. The nomination became intensely controversial after a reporter discovered the text of a 1948 political campaign speech by Carswell in which he said "segregation of the races is proper." The Senate eventually rejected the nomination 51-45. ------------------- Afterword In November 2004, a JURIST reader wrote with regard to this entry: You are factually correct. The speech is accurately quoted. But the most significant part of it wasn't that quote -- which, after all, reflected the law of the land through Brown v. Board of Education. The most significant part was Carswell's avowal of his "firm, vigorous belief in the principles of white supremacy." I recall this because I was the reporter who discovered the speech, in the basement of the Wilkinson County courthouse in Georgia, where it was preserved as lead story in The Irwinton Bulletin, a weekly Carswell edited, which was kept because it was the legal paper of record." Edward Roeder later added: "just to ensure the accuracy of my quote from the speech -- including capitalization and punctuation -- let me check it. At the moment, I'm at the Library of Congress, a couple of blocks from my home where I have a photograph I took of the speech as printed in 1948 in the weekly newspaper. Another great quote spawned by that confirmation battle was by Sen. Judiciary Committee Ranking Republican Roman Hruska, in response to the charge that Carswell was "mediocre." Hruska famously told the cameras staked outside the hearing room: "Even if he was mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers . . . They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there." One other aspect of that nomination might be worth noting. After Carswell's defeat, the seat went to Harry Blackmun. A year and a half later, he wrote Roe v. Wade," probably the most controversial and far-reaching SCOTUS decision since Brown."And finally:I found and reviewed my photo of Carswell's 1948 speech. First, it may be helpful to provide a bit of context for the part you quoted. The graf read, "I Am A Southerner By Ancestry, Birth, Training, Inclination, Belief And Practice. I Believe That Segregation Of The Races is Proper And The ONLY Practical And Correct Way Of Life In Our States." The first letter of each word is capitalized, the the word ONLY is in all caps. The "white supremacy" quote, two grafs later, is as strident: "I Yield To NO MAN, As A Fellow Candidate, Or As A Fellow Citizen, In The Firm Vigirous Belief In The Principles Of White Supremacy, And I Shall Always Be So Governed." Again, the first letter of each word is capitalized, and NO MAN is in all caps. "Vigorous" is misspelled in the newspaper. JURIST thanks Mr. Roeder for sharing his recollections - and his role in a fascinating snippet of Supreme Court history.

Tribunal established for Japan war criminals

On January 19, 1946, General Douglas MacArthur promulgated the Charter for the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, creating a court in Tokyo to try Japanese war criminals after World War II. Pursuant to Article 7 of the Charter, the Court's Rules of Procedure were set three months later. The judges and prosecutors represented the allied nations of the United States, the USSR, China, the Netherlands, Canada, France, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, the Philippines, and India. Article 6 of the Charter divided the accused War Criminals into three classes. Class A war criminals were those guilty of crimes against peace. Class B war criminals were those found guilty of actual war crimes. The highest-level war criminals fell into Class C for crimes against humanity. Court prosecutors indicted over 5,700 people in Japan for Class B and C War Crimes. When the tribunal's final judgment was issued two years later on November 1, 1948, 984 of the defendants were convicted and sentenced to death. 475 of them were convicted and sentenced to life in prison, while 2,944 received lesser prison terms. Finally, 1,297 Japanese defendants were either acquitted, not tried, or not sentenced. Many Japanese defendants were indicted for their actions during the occupation of China. Read the indictment of Class A war criminals involved in the Rape of Nanking.

American Civil Liberties Union founded

The American Civil Liberties Union was founded on January 19, 1920 by a group of civil rights activists and lawyers. The group's founders included Helen Keller, labor activist Elizabeth Gurley-Flynn and future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. The organization would be involved in the Scopes Monkey Trial and the landmark Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education. Learn more about the history of the American Civil Liberties Union.