South Africa’s application to the International Court of Justice, charging Israel with genocide, puts the foundations of the UN and its institutions under a magnifying glass.

A conversation with a knowledgeable person abroad drew out some of the nuances of the case. They are worth setting down plainly.

What Makes This Case Different

  • The ICJ is not the ICC. The International Court of Justice is a UN body for disputes between states. It has nothing to do with the International Criminal Court’s charges against individuals, such as those against Putin or Bashir. This is country against country.
  • The consequences run wider than the two parties. Either outcome carries legal and credibility ramifications for the governments and institutions of other countries — notably the United States and the United Kingdom. Leaders and institutions could be exposed to questions of complicity under their own constitutions.
  • It concerns an ongoing action. Unlike past genocide cases heard one, three or ten years afterwards — where perpetrators may be beyond reach and reparations are symbolic, paid to the descendants of victims — this one is being brought while events are still unfolding.
  • It is the first such case against a Euro-American ally, and it depends on precedent set in earlier cases that suited Euro-American political and ideological positions.
  • It puts the UN’s own values on trial. The case attaches itself to the credibility, equity and foundational values of the UN, and to the power imbalances the institution has perpetuated — particularly on Israel.
  • Even an interim decision draws a line. It is either an existential threat to the UN’s reputation and standing, or a reinvigoration of it, especially on peace and security.
  • The evidence will be public. Global attention on what is presented has implications for public opinion, media and civil society, and for how Israel is viewed.
  • It sets precedent. The outcome bears on the nature and future of the UN, its powers and institutions, the standing of the Global South and the non-aligned and developing world, and the enforceability — if any — of international law upon nations.

Background Reading

A five-minute read that sets out the legal claims, the basis for South Africa’s standing, what to expect as the case unfolds, and the possible broader effects — including for the United States and other allies of Israel.

Its authors note that whatever one makes of the merits, the case rests on a form of standing the Court has only recently recognised — erga omnes partes, standing based on obligations owed to all parties — which they argue has “the potential to revolutionize the enforcement of long under-enforced human rights treaties”, while bringing risk to the Court itself.

The Promise and Risk of South Africa’s Case Against Israel — Just Security.

Shared by the South African Muslim Network (SAMNET) in the interest of informing, educating and supporting the South African application to the International Court of Justice charging Israel with genocide.

Contact SAMNET
info@samnet.co.za
WhatsApp 084 333 3979
www.samnet.co.za