Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/37

 and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 October 2018, I.C.J. Reports 2018 (II), p. 638, para. 53); and (3) whether the situation is urgent and presents a risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights asserted (ibid., pp. 645-646, paras. 77-78).

17. I am not convinced that all the above criteria for the indication of provisional measures have been met in the present case. In particular, South Africa has not demonstrated, even on a prima facie basis, that the acts allegedly committed by Israel, and of which the Applicant complains, were committed with the necessary genocidal intent and that, as a result, they are capable of falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention. Similarly, when it comes to the rights that the Applicant asserts and for which South Africa seeks protection through the indication of provisional measures, there is no indication that the acts allegedly committed by Israel were accompanied by a genocidal intent and that, as a result, the rights asserted by the Applicant are plausible under the Genocide Convention. What distinguishes the crime of genocide from other grave violations of international human rights law (including those enumerated in Article II, paragraphs (a) to (d), of the Genocide Convention) is the existence of the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”. Accordingly, the acts complained of by South Africa, as well as the rights correlated to those acts, can only be capable of “falling within the scope of the said Convention” if a genocidal intent is present, otherwise such acts simply constitute grave violations of international humanitarian law and not genocide as such.

18. Thus, even at this preliminary stage of provisional measures, the Court should have examined the evidence put before it to determine whether there are indicators of a genocidal intent (even if it is not the only inference to be drawn from the available evidence at this stage), in order for the Court to conclude that the acts complained of by the Applicant are, prima facie, capable of falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention. Similarly, for purposes of determining plausibility of rights, it is not sufficient for the Court to only look at allegations of the grave breaches enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (d) of Article II of the Convention. The rights must be shown to plausibly derive from the Genocide Convention.

19. In the present case, South Africa claims that at least some of the acts it has complained of are capable of falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention. These include (1) the killing of Palestinians in Gaza (in violation of Article II (a)); (2) causing serious bodily or mental harm to the Palestinians in Gaza (in violation of Article II (b)); (3) deliberately inflicting upon the Palestinians in Gaza conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction as a group, in whole or in part (in violation of Article II (c)); and (4) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (in violation of Article II (d)). South Africa further claims that Israel has employed methods of war that continue to target infrastructure essential for survival and that have resulted in the destruction of the Palestinian people as a group, including by depriving them of food, water, medical care, shelter, clothing, lack of hygiene, systematic expulsion from homes or displacement (in violation of Article II (c)) (see Application, paras. 125-127). South Africa also claims that certain Israeli officials and politicians have, through their statements, publicly incited the Israeli Defense Force (“IDF”) to commit genocide (in violation of Article III (c)) and that Israel has failed to punish those responsible for the above violations. To demonstrate a genocidal intent, South Africa referred to the “systematic manner” in which Israel’s military operation in Gaza is carried out, resulting in the acts enumerated in Article II of the Convention, as well as to statements of various Israeli officials and politicians that, in the Applicant’s view, communicate State policy of Israel and contain genocidal rhetoric against Palestinians in Gaza, including statements by the Israeli Prime Minister, the Deputy Speaker of the Israeli Parliament (Knesset), the Defense Minister, the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, the Heritage Minister, the President and the Minister for National Security.