Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

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