Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause Does Not Sanction Unilateral Appointment Or Arbitrary Interim Orders: Supreme Court POCSO Act | Statutory Presumption Under Section 29 Is Not Absolute And Does Not Dispense With The Requirement Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Establish Each Link Individually To Exclude All Hypotheses Other Than Guilt: Supreme Court Digitization Of Court Records | Failure To Maintain Complete E-Files Frustrates Justice Delivery: Rajasthan High Court Issues Directions For Paperless Functioning Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Magistrate Lacks Jurisdiction To Try Offences Post-2009 Amendment; Case Must Be Committed To Court Of Sessions: Himachal Pradesh High Court Mere Fact That Assets Stand In Name Of Relative Doesn't Presume Abetment Of Corruption By Public Servant: Madras High Court Appellate Court Should Not Disturb Acquittal If Trial Court View Is Plausible And Based On Evidentiary Discrepancies: Himachal Pradesh High Court Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Title If The Root Of Title Is Based On Fraudulent Or Non-Existent Grant: Karnataka High Court Digital Evidence In Divorce | Unverified Electronic Records Without Section 65B Certificate Fail To Prove Cruelty: Kerala High Court Allahabad HC Rules U.P. RERA Appellate Tribunal Can Remand Matters Under Section 11(5) RERA Act In Interest Of Justice Maintenance For Minor Child Cannot Be Denied Or Reduced Based On Defective Disclosure Affidavits Of Mother: Kerala High Court Income Tax | Administrative CBDT Circulars Cannot Override Statutory Provisions Or Tie The Hands Of A Court: Supreme Court Section 311 CrPC | Power To Recall Witness Cannot Be Used To Fill Lacunae Or Supplement Case At Belated Stage: Andhra Pradesh High Court Interim Protection In Appeal Is Conditional; Failure To Comply With Deposit Order Renders Relief Inoperative: Delhi High Court Right To Electricity Is A Facet Of Dignified Living; Restoration Of Supply Does Not Create Equity Or Title Over Premises: Calcutta High Court MEPS Rules | Delay In Submission Of Proposal By Management Cannot Be A Ground To Deny Approval To A Teacher: Bombay High Court Mere Exhibition Of Document Does Not Amount To Proof Of Contents: Gujarat High Court Section 92 CPC | Civil Court Cannot Pass Protective Interim Orders Before Grant Of Leave To Institute Suit: Supreme Court Deeming Provision Under Rule 10(5)(iii) Of 1978 Rules Cannot Validate Appointment Made In Violation Of Mandatory Statutory Reservation: Allahabad High Court Maharashtra Poisons Rules 1972 | Mandatory Addition Of Denaturants To Methanol Without Proportionality Analysis Violates Article 14 And 19(1)(g): Supreme Court Deputy Registrar Of Cooperative Societies Possesses Power To Supersede Managing Committee Under Section 34 AP Cooperative Societies Act: High Court Order XXI Rule 1 CPC | Deposit Made To Obtain Stay Under Section 34 of 1996 Act Without Notice Is Not In Satisfaction Of Award: Supreme Court Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC | Mere Conclusion Of Evidence Does Not Bar Production Of Relevant Documents At The Stage Of Final Arguments: Allahabad 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

Latest Legal News