Summary
Advocate of the High Court of South Africa and barrister, counsel for South Africa in South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention), who presented the argument on the nature of the rights requiring protection and their link to the measures requested on 11 January 2024 (Verbatim record CR 2024/1 — Public sitting of 11 January 2024, oral argument of South Africa (South Africa v. Israel), PDF p.4, p.48-56).
Details
- His speech argues the rights claimed need only be “at least plausible”; the core right is that of Palestinians in Gaza to exist, as a very substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group; and South Africa has chosen to avoid showing graphic material and not to turn the Court “into a theatre for spectacle” (PDF p.48-50).
- He argues a motive to destroy Hamas does not preclude Genocidal intent, and that South Africa’s own rights rest on the Erga omnes obligations character of the Convention, quoting The Gambia v. Myanmar on the common interest of all States parties (PDF p.51-53).
- Concluding, he argues any State party may invoke another’s responsibility for failure to comply with its obligations erga omnes partes, that a link “manifestly exists” between the rights claimed and the measures requested, and that to find otherwise would treat Palestinians as less worthy of protection than others (PDF p.54-56).
Related pages
Verbatim record CR 2024/1 — Public sitting of 11 January 2024, oral argument of South Africa (South Africa v. Israel), South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention), Provisional measures, Erga omnes obligations