The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued preliminary orders in South Africa's genocide case against Israel, compelling Israel to prevent genocidal acts and ensure humanitarian aid, while acknowledging a plausible case of genocide.
Key Points
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
Israel is being accused of committing
genocide in the un's top court and now
that we have a preliminary ruling from
the court it's raised a lot of questions
I've talked to some experts to try to
help answer 10 of the biggest ones so
let's start with the basics what is this
case about this case is being tried in
the international court of justice which
is the un's main judicial body it's
often referred to as the world Court it
is the the Pinnacle Court in the
international legal system it's
basically where countries can take each
other to court this particular case is
between Israel and South Africa and will
be decided by 17 judges from around the
world South Africa says Israel's
military operation in Gaza breaches the
1948 genocide convention and has a
genocidal intent against Palestinians in
its argument it refers to things like
the high number of Palestinians killed
the displacement of the vast majority of
the population the Restriction of aid
the attacks on healthcare workers in
hospitals and public statements made by
Israeli officials inciting genocide
Israel meanwhile argues that it has the
right to defend itself and says although
the civilian suffering in Gaza is tragic
its military operation is following
International humanitarian law and that
its true intent shouldn't be taken from
what it says are random quotes but from
official government policy and
statements made by its leaders which it
says demonstr at the opposite of
genocidal intent for example the Prime
Minister repeating that Israel is
targeting Hamas and not the civilian
population question number two why is
South Africa involved because of the
seriousness of genocide any state that
recognizes the genocide convention can
bring charges to the icj even if they're
not directly involved and South Africa
has a long history of supporting the
Palestinian people however experts say
the likely reason why South Africa
decided to take the lead in this case
was to avoid any legal complications
that may have slowed things down
Palestine has brought a case to the icj
before and recognizes the genocide
convention but it's not a fully fledged
member of the UN and is not recognized
by Israel as a state which many experts
speculate would have resulted in Israel
refusing to participate in the case
Israel simply wouldn't have shown up had
Palestine brought the case now why has a
rule in already been made cases like
this can take years to reach a final
ruling so in the meantime South Africa
requested what are known as provisional
measures these are basically emergency
orders that the court can hand out to
stop a situation from getting worse
while a case unfolds South Africa's main
request was asking the court to order
Israel to stop its military operations
in Gaza in other words to order an
immediate ceasefire and it just says
look there's a risk here that if we
don't step in and make these emergency
measures things will get so much worse
that our eventual judgment won't have
any effect at all Israel on the other
hand requested that the court dismiss
the case altogether the ruling that
we've just received has to do with these
specific requests and is only an interim
ruling it's not a ruling on whether or
not Israel is committing genocide like I
said a final ruling on that is still a
long way away just as a quick side note
the reason why this case is solely
focused on accusations of genocide and
not accusations of war crimes for
example is because war crimes are
outside of the jurisdiction of the icj
war crimes are defined by the UN as
violations of international humanitarian
law that incur individual criminal
responsibility the icj is not a criminal
court and it's set up for disputes
between states not individuals charging
an individual with a war crime is
something that's usually hand handled by
the international criminal court which
is a completely different organization
that follows a completely different
legal process so what was the interim
ruling the icj denied Israel's request
to dismiss the case accept South
Africa's arguments that there's a
plausible case that genocide has
occurred and may be occurring right now
it also granted most of South Africa's
requests except for its main one
ordering an immediate ceasefire instead
the court has ordered Israel to do
everything it can to prevent acts of
genocide as well as stopping comments
that may incite genocide Israel has also
been ordered to make sure that civilians
in Gaza are provided with basic services
and the humanitarian Aid they urgently
need plus Israel must report back to the
court within a month to demonstrate that
it's been following these court orders
the icj judges voted overwhelmingly in
favor of most of South Africa's requests
so why didn't the court also order a
ceasefire one of the main theories posed
by a number of legal experts is that
even if the court wanted to it just
doesn't necessarily have jurisdiction to
order a full ceasefire not just because
of how narrow the focus of South
Africa's case is but because the court
doesn't actually have jurisdiction over
Hamas because Hamas isn't a state so the
court can't actually order a ceasefire
because it can only order one side to
stop fighting which would have raised
issues about what impact that would have
had upon Israel's inherent right to
self-defense for example in its ruling
the icj called for Hamas to release its
hostages but it can't actually order it
to and this brings us to the next
question why isn't Hamas also before the
court like I said the icj is only for
disputes between states and Hamas isn't
a state charging an individual with
genocide or a war crime is something
that's handled by the IC this is also
why it's the state of Israel before the
icj and not specific leaders in Israel
so what is the punishment for genocide
at the icj the short answer to this is
not much because the icj isn't a
criminal court like the ICC usually the
Court's orders are declaratory so that
means that they state the law and don't
go any further than that for example in
the '90s Serbia was ruled to have failed
to prevent genocide occurring in the
town of sanit which is the only time a
breach of the genocide convention has
been found at the icj the result of that
ruling was basically stating what the
breach was ordering Serbia to follow the
convention in future and to cooperate
with cases involving individuals accused
of genocide the court can also order a
country to pay reparations but an
important wrinkle to all of this is that
even though icj rulings are binding and
can't be appealed the court doesn't
actually have any power to enforce
anything and relies on countries acting
in good faith for example in 2022 the
court ordered Russia to stop its
military operation in Ukraine which
Russia basically ignored if an order is
ignored the UN Security Council can be
asked to intervene but even the security
council's powers are limited because any
of its permanent members like Russia or
the United States can veto any decision
and even when the council has agreed to
support an icj ruling as it did in 1993
for example its resolution failed to
prevent the CIT a massacre just 2 years
later the fact that the icj mostly just
States what the law is and can't
actually enforce anything often leads
people to asking what's the point of the
icj experts say for the most part
countries do respect the decisions of
the court and defying its orders can
lead to reputational damage sanctions
and international isolation rulings also
helped to shape and influence
International opinion and Future
decision making it creates this
historical record you have a set of
facts which are essentially indisputable
because a third party neutral decision
maker has looked at the evidence from
both sides plus emergency orders from
the court can help to deescalate
worsening situations which is what
experts hope will happen in Gaza after
this ruling the court was very clear to
emphasize the need for ensuring that
this doesn't get any worse they called
it a catastrophe and this brings us to
the final question what does all of this
mean for the people of Gaza in the week
following the ruling according to gaza's
Ministry of Health more than a th000
Palestinians were killed and more
recently a top un official has accused
Israel of already breaching the icj's
orders South Africa has even made
another urgent request to the court in
what experts say is an attempt to Halt
Israel's ground invasion of Rafa a city
in the south of Gaza where more than a
million Palestinians have fled since the
start of the war
Israel maintains that it's following
International humanitarian law as it
says it has been this entire time
mediating countries are still hopeful
that a ceasefire deal can be reached but
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu says
Israel's military operation in Gaza
won't end until it eliminates Hamas many
experts say the most concrete order by
the court that may lead to some change
is the one relating to humanitarian Aid
however in recent days un officials have
reported their healthare situation in
Gaza is still extremely precarious and
that the risk of famine is increasing
day by day beyond that experts say at
the very least Israel will be aware that
its actions in Gaza are now under an
even greater microscope also that this
ruling may make Israel's allies reassess
how they're supporting this military
operation there's also the possibility
of states which are supplying Israel
with military aid for example they're at
risk now of um being found to have aided
or abetted an internationally wrongful
act the bottom line here is that we'll
have a better understanding of just how
much of an impact this ruling has
actually made by the time Israel has
been ordered to report back to the icj
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
