Summary
39 Essex Chambers, member of the Bar of England and Wales, counsel and advocate for Israel in South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention), who argued that the provisional measures requested are unwarranted and prejudicial on 12 January 2024 (Verbatim record CR 2024/2 — Public sitting of 12 January 2024, oral argument of Israel (South Africa v. Israel), PDF p.8, p.55).
Details
- He addresses each of the nine measures for completeness (PDF p.55-71): a unilateral suspension of Israel’s military operations, requested by a State not party to the conflict, is “frankly astonishing”, and the measures in Ukraine v. Russian Federation were granted in a fundamentally different case, where Russia claimed its operation was to prevent and punish genocide.
- He argues provisional measures must balance both parties’ rights and be proportionate, that the measures would be a sword rather than a temporary shield, and that each later measure is unwarranted: the third would confer a special mandate on South Africa, the fourth and fifth seek implied merits rulings through “desist”, the sixth imports Bosnia and Myanmar wording on irregular armed units and adds a non-urgent punishment obligation, the seventh implies concealment of evidence and seeks access Israel need not give, the eighth (reports) is not routine, and the ninth (non-aggravation) cannot fairly bind one party only (PDF p.56-71).
Related pages
Verbatim record CR 2024/2 — Public sitting of 12 January 2024, oral argument of Israel (South Africa v. Israel), South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention), Provisional measures, Omri Sender