Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Judicial Test Likely as Waqf (Amendment) Bill Opens New Front on Constitutional Grounds

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