“Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Successive FIRs Cannot Be Used to Thwart Bail: Supreme Court Invokes Article 32 to Protect Personal Liberty Supreme Court Enforces Contractual Bar Against Interest in Government Contracts Ex Parte Decree Not a Blank Cheque - Merely Because Defendant Absent, Plaintiff’s Case Not Presumed True: Madras High Court Mandatory Injunction Cannot Be Kept in Cold Storage: Supreme Court Enforces Strict Three-Year Limitation for Execution Senior Citizens Act Is for Maintenance, Not a Shortcut to Eviction: Calcutta High Court Restrains Tribunal’s Overreach Statement ‘Counsel Says’ Is Not a Binding Undertaking Without Client’s Specific Authorization: Allahabad High Court Declines to Initiate Contempt Rigours of Section 43-D(5) Melt Down When Liberty Is at Stake: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case After 2.5 Years’ Custody Vakalatnama Is Not a Mere Form – Attestation Is a Legal Safeguard: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cautions Advocates and Registry on Procedural Sanctity Right to Be Considered for Promotion Is Fundamental – Employer’s Unfairness Cannot Defeat It: : Gujarat High Court Panchayat Statement Implicating Others Is Not a Confession Proper: J&K High Court Rejects Extra-Judicial Confession in Murder Appeal Contempt Lies Only on ‘Wilful and Deliberate Disobedience’ – Fresh KASP Appointments Not Replacement of Daily Wage Workers: Kerala High Court 498A Cannot Become a Dragnet for Entire Family: Orissa High Court Shields Distant In-Laws but Sends Husband to Trial Forgery Of ACR Is No Part Of Official Duty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against IFS Officer Sole Eye-Witness Not Wholly Reliable, Conviction Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused in Alleged Witchcraft Double Murder Case Functional Disability, Not Mere Physical Percentage, Determines Compensation: Kerala High Court Remands Employees’ Compensation Case for Medical Board Assessment Conviction Cannot Rest On Fictitious Memorandums – When Investigation Is Tainted, Benefit Of Doubt Must Follow: MP High Court Legal Objection Cannot Be Sprung in Second Appeal: P&H High Court Draws Sharp Line Between ‘Legal Plea’ and ‘Legal Objection’ When Foundational Facts Are Seriously Disputed, Writ Court Ought Not To Undertake A Fact-Finding Exercise: Kerala High Court Compliance Affidavits Are Nothing But Admission of Disobedience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Puts Chief Secretaries and DGPs in Dock Over Arnesh Kumar Violations Husband’s Salary Slips Are Personal Information: Rajasthan High Court Refuses Disclosure Under RTI

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