Highlights:

• On December 29, 2023, South Africa initiated legal proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. 
• Since October 7, more than 23,000 individuals have lost their lives, with almost 10,000 of them being children.
• Over 85 percent of Gaza’s 2.3 million residents have been displaced.
• South Africa’s application has garnered support from Bangladesh, Malaysia, Turkey, Jordan, Pakistan, Bolivia, Colombia, and Brazil.

On December 29, 2023, South Africa initiated legal proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, alleging genocide against the Palestinian people since the Hamas attack on October 7 of the previous year. Hearings on South Africa's request for provisional measures took place on January 11 and 12.

The core of the case revolves around Israel’s alleged violation of the Genocide Convention of 1948 in its actions against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. This argument has been formally presented to the ICJ. Since October 7, more than 23,000 individuals have lost their lives, with almost 10,000 of them being children. 

Over 85 percent of Gaza’s 2.3 million residents have been displaced, and humanitarian agencies have raised concerns about the risk of famine due to increasing hunger. The 365 square kilometers (141 square miles) enclave has been under Israeli blockade since 2007.

South Africa asserts that Israel is not only engaged in genocide but is also actively attempting to eradicate the Palestinian nation. They claim that Israel is specifically targeting the national, ethnic, and social components of the Gaza population.Top of Form

Bangladesh Backs South Africa’s Plea Against Israeli Aggression

Bangladesh has officially expressed its support for this case, as confirmed in a verified status on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Facebook page.

The statement on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Facebook page notes that numerous Palestinian civilians, predominantly women and children, have lost their lives in the continuous attacks by the Israeli forces. Bangladesh views Israel’s planned aggression as a clear violation of international law and genocide.

The post also emphasizes Bangladesh’s endorsement of the actions taken by South Africa against Israel. Bangladesh believes that Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza should cease, supporting South Africa’s plea for safe, sufficient, and uninterrupted humanitarian assistance in Gaza.

Bangladesh aspires to see an end to the Israeli occupation in Palestine and seeks a permanent solution. It advocates for considering the pre-1967 borders in establishing East Jerusalem as the capital of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state.

Additionally, the statement calls upon all nations to respect their obligations under the Genocide Convention and emphasizes their responsibility to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. Bangladesh urges all member states of the Genocide Convention to uphold their obligations in the face of genocide.

How Other Countries Align in South Africa’s Legal Move?

Predictably, states have displayed a divided stance in response to this case. Besides Bangladesh, South Africa’s application has garnered support from various countries, including Malaysia, Turkey, Jordan, Pakistan, Bolivia, Colombia, and Brazil. On Tuesday, 9th January, Belgian Deputy Prime Minister Petra De Sutter expressed her intention to officially endorse South Africa in the case.

Simultaneously with South Africa filing its application, the Palestinian Authority’s foreign ministry welcomed the case and urged the international community to back the proceedings. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation echoed this sentiment, urging the court to “take urgent measures to stop this mass genocide.”

Conversely, Israel has garnered robust support. Germany, a close European ally, dismissed the claim of genocide by Israel as false and argued that it falls outside the scope of the Genocide Convention. Hungary has also voiced opposition to the case, and the United States declared the allegations against Israel as “unfounded,” labeling the submission at the ICJ as “meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever.”

As of now, no state has submitted a formal declaration to intervene in the case. Both Ireland and Austria have explicitly stated that they do not plan to intervene. In contrast, in the Ukraine vs. Russia case under the Genocide Convention, a remarkable thirty-two states have intervened as non-parties.

The Prolonged Timeline Expected for the Case at ICJTop of Form

The resolution of the case itself is expected to span several years. For instance, past cases under the Genocide Convention at the ICJ involving Serbia endured for over a decade before reaching a final decision. Currently, the court is addressing South Africa’s request for provisional measures.

To illustrate, the ICJ previously mandated Russia to halt military operations in Ukraine through provisional measures in a case brought by Ukraine. Despite the court’s decision, Russia has thus far disregarded the directive.

Considering the urgency of provisional measures and the potential for irreparable harm, this phase takes precedence over all others and is typically resolved within a matter of weeks. In the case initiated by Ukraine against Russia, the hearing on provisional measures took place on March 7, 2022, with the court issuing its decision on March 16, 2022. 

In a similar scenario involving The Gambia against Myanmar, the hearing commenced on December 10, 2019, and the court rendered its decision on January 23, 2020.

In light of Israel’s remarks in its January 12 arguments concerning the presence of a dispute between the parties, a prerequisite for jurisdiction, it appears probable that Israel may interpose preliminary objections on jurisdiction or admissibility, contending that the court lacks the authority to hear the case based on procedural grounds. In such an event, the court would initially address these issues.

Should Israel refrain from raising preliminary objections or if the court dismisses them, the case will progress to the merits phase, focusing on whether Israel has breached its obligations under the Genocide Convention. In this conclusive phase, South Africa will present its case asserting that Israel has either committed or failed to prevent genocide in Gaza, while Israel will present its defense contesting these allegations.