Summary
KC, counsel for South Africa in South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention), who presented the argument on the provisional measures sought 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.73-82).
Details
- He sets out the Court’s five requirements for provisional measures — prima facie jurisdiction, link, plausibility, risk of irreparable prejudice and urgency — and argues each is satisfied (PDF p.74-75).
- He explains why no order is sought against Hamas: “Hamas is not a State and cannot be a party to the Genocide Convention; and cannot be a party to these proceedings” (PDF p.76).
- He argues the first two measures, suspension of Israel’s military operations, are the only way to secure the humanitarian response, and that intention matters as well as scale: an operation carried out pursuant to an intention to destroy a people, in whole or in part, violates the Convention however carefully it is carried out (PDF p.77-79).
- On self-defence he relies on the Wall Advisory Opinion and argues the main point is simpler: “no matter how monstrous or appalling an attack or provocation, genocide is never a permitted response” (PDF p.80-81). He argues unilateral undertakings by Israel would not be enough and that the Court should assert its authority and order compliance (PDF p.81-82).
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, Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh, Vusimuzi Madonsela