Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Immediate Risk of Irreparable Prejudice: International Court of Justice Orders Israel to Prevent Genocide Acts in Gaza, Upholding Humanitarian Law

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark order, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has mandated Israel to take immediate and effective measures to prevent acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip. The decision comes in the wake of an application filed by South Africa against Israel, alleging violations of obligations under the Genocide Convention in the Gaza conflict.

“The Court finds a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found to be plausible,” stated the ICJ, highlighting the urgency and gravity of the situation in Gaza. This pivotal ruling underscores the Court’s commitment to uphold international humanitarian law and the Genocide Convention.

The Court’s order, stemming from its prima facie jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention, recognizes the standing of South Africa to bring forth the case. It signifies a momentous recognition of the collective interest of States parties to the Convention in preventing and punishing acts of genocide.

“The rights of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III of the Genocide Convention are plausible,” the Court observed, acknowledging the critical need to safeguard these fundamental rights.

In its provisional measures, the Court has directed Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of acts such as killing, causing harm, or deliberately inflicting conditions leading to physical destruction within the scope of Article II of the Genocide Convention. Furthermore, Israel is obligated to prevent and punish incitement to commit genocide and to preserve evidence related to allegations of such acts.

Moreover, the Court ordered Israel to submit a detailed report within one month, outlining the measures taken in compliance with the order. This aspect of the ruling ensures a mechanism of accountability and transparency in the implementation of the Court’s directions.

Emphasizing the binding nature of its orders, the Court declared, “its Orders on provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute have binding effect and thus create international legal obligations for any party to whom the provisional measures are addressed.”

The ICJ’s decision, while focusing on provisional measures, does not prejudge the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the merits of the case. It maintains the rights of South Africa and Israel to submit arguments concerning the merits of the case.

The Court also expressed grave concern about the hostages’ fate abducted during the conflict and reiterated the binding nature of international humanitarian law for all parties involved in the Gaza conflict.

 SOUTH AFRICA v. ISRAEL

Similar News