Genocide case against Israel: What to know about ICJ ruling on provisional measures

By Selman Aksunger

THE HAGUE (AA) – A decision regarding interim measures requested by South Africa in a case it filed against Israel for violating the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in its attacks on Gaza will be announced on Friday at 1 p.m. local time (1200GMT), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, the Netherlands announced in a statement.

• The International Court of Justice initiates the discussion of South Africa's request for interim measures.

• Israel is accused of "evidencing genocidal intent" in Gaza at the International Court of Justice.

• Anadolu’s photos have been presented as evidence at the International Court of Justice, where Israel is accused of genocide.

• South Africa, accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza, supports its arguments with concrete evidence.

• War crimes and genocide case marks Israel's 100-day destruction in Gaza.

• The genocide case at the International Court of Justice causes panic in Israel.

If the interim measures requested by South Africa to prevent "further, serious and irreparable harm to the rights of the Palestinian people under the Genocide Convention" are accepted by the Court, this decision would be binding for Israel, while the process related to the substance of the case is expected to take several years.

What will happen on Friday?

The ICJ will publicly announce its decision regarding South Africa's request for interim measures in an open session.

During the reading of the decision, 17 judges, including 15 permanent judges of the Court and ad hoc judges appointed by Israel and South Africa for this case, will be present in the courtroom.

The decision will be first read in English by the President of the Court, Judge Joan E. Donoghue, and the session will conclude with the reading of the French summary of the decision by the Registrar of the Court, Philippe Gautier.

What does the interim measure decision mean?

The decision to be announced by the ICJ does not pertain to whether Israel has acted in violation of the Genocide Convention; rather, it aims to prevent the potential harm arising from the risk of genocide until a final decision is reached in the case. It signifies temporary measures that the parties must adhere to.

While the Court found South Africa's "reasonable" justifications sufficient in its examination of the interim measure requests, it will conduct an examination during the substantive phase of the case to determine whether genocide has occurred in Gaza.

Considering the Court's tendency to find South Africa's requests reasonable, it is more likely that the Court will rule in favor of measures to ensure Israel complies with international law in its military operations in Gaza and takes necessary actions for ensuring that humanitarian aid gets through to the people, including access to food, water, fuel, medical and hygiene supplies, shelter and clothing for those displaced.

Is the interim measure decision binding?

According to Article 59 of the Statute of the ICJ, the Court's decisions are binding on the parties involved, but they do not have binding force on third countries.

The Court communicates its decisions to the relevant organs of the UN, and if Israel does not comply with the potential interim measure decision of the Court, South Africa can bring the matter to the UN Security Council to take action for the enforcement of the Court's decision.

While the Court does not have its own military force or organ to enforce its decisions, the implementation of these decisions largely depends on the discretion of the UN Security Council due to the political pressure that may arise from the Court's decision.

What will be the course of the case?

While the interim measure requests constitute the initial stage of the case, the next step involves moving to the "preliminary objections" phase, where the Court examines its jurisdiction and the admissibility criteria. If these conditions are met, the case proceeds to the "merits" phase for trial.

The decisions of the Court are final and not subject to appeal.

Although the Court has been moving more quickly in recent years, it typically takes over 10 years to conclude cases like those involving genocide. For instance, when the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina filed a genocide case against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on March 20, 1993, the Court rejected the interim measure requests on July 11, 1996.

Following hearings on the merits held between Feb. 27 and May 9, 2006, the Court issued its final decision on Feb. 26, 2007, stating that genocide occurred in Srebrenica. Similar timelines were observed in a case where Croatia filed a genocide case against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on July 2, 1999, with the Court delivering its final decision on Feb. 3, 2015 after completing hearings with witnesses and experts between March 3 and April 1, 2014.

What interim measures did South Africa request?

South Africa is seeking the Court to apply temporary measures to compel Israel to "refrain from committing genocide, prevent genocide, and punish the perpetrators of genocide."

These temporary measures aim to prevent the situation from deteriorating further during the ongoing legal process.

South Africa is specifically requesting the Court to require Israel to:

1. Immediately cease military operations in Gaza.

2. Refrain from taking any steps to advance any military operation in Gaza by any group under its control.

3. Take all reasonable measures to prevent genocide against Palestinians.

4. Refrain from any actions falling under Article 2 of the Genocide Convention.

5. Ensure access to humanitarian aid, including food, water, fuel, medical and hygiene supplies, shelter and clothing for those returning to their homes.

6. Take necessary steps for the punishment of those involved in genocide.

7. Preserve evidence of genocide and not obstruct international officials and other authorities coming to Gaza for this purpose.

8. Regularly report to the Court on the implementation of the measures.

9. Refrain from actions that would complicate or prolong the case.

*Writing by Esra Tekin in Istanbul