“Critically compare the majority and the minority judgments in the “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip-South Africa v Israel”, before the International Court of Justice,- on three critical points.
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS AND GUIDELINES
1. Please submit the research essay ONLINE in the drop box created for the purpose on Blackboard on or before 6 May 2024.
2. You may work in groups of maximum FOUR (4) students.
3. get a copy of both the majority and minority judgments. Once you have read both the judgments, choose three critical issues that both judgments dealt with and compare them.
Please structure your essay as follows:
3.1 Background (briefly)
3.2. The issue raised by South Africa (briefly)
3.3. With reference to the judgments, choose three (3) critical issues that both judgments dealt with and compare them. (Detail)
3.4 Conclusion on the major differences between the minority and majority judgments.(Briefly)
You may work in groups of maximum 5 persons for this assignment.
4. If you so choose- the group may be smaller than FIVE persons may AND you are allowed to work individually.
5. Each essay must indicate the names and student numbers of the group members or the individual student, as the case may be.
6. If it is a group essay, the essay needs to be submitted on BB by ONE group member only.
7. Do not use pictures or similar adorning symbols on the cover sheet of the essay.
8. Each essay must include the UFS declaration of originality and statement that no material was plagiarized and a declaration that the essay is not artificially or BOT generated.
9. Essays with a similarity index of more than 40% will be severely penalized.
10. Write the essay in 11 letter size, in Aerial font and 1.5’ line spacing.
11.Submit the essay on BB in the correct format, allowing the examiner to open the document and make comments on it.
12.Reference all sources in footnotes fully, in other words, AUTHOR, DATE, PUBLICATION (INCLUDING INTERNET SOURCE), TITLE and PAGE REFERENCE. For other sources, use the reference style of the JJS.
13. Do NOT include a BIBLIOGRAPHY.
14. Do not state or copy and paste the law. Paraphrase/state/summarize findings/views/ provisions in your own words.
15. Maximum word count: 2000 words; minimum word count 1200.
16. Justify the layout.
20. MARK RANKING: 50%=ACCEPTABLE; 60%=GOOD; 75%=VERY GOOD; 80% =excellent.
The essay will be graded according to (a) your correct and crisp spotting of the three issues and (b) paraphrasing the content accurately. Your critical input is not required.
Introduction:
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was seized to render an advisory opinion on the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip-South Africa v Israel. The case raised important questions regarding the interpretation and application of the Convention in the context of the conflict in the Gaza Strip. The majority and minority judgments in this case presented differing views on key issues, which will be critically compared in this essay.
Background:
South Africa brought the case to the ICJ, seeking clarification on whether Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip constituted genocide under the Convention. The majority of the Court ultimately found that Israel's actions did not meet the criteria for genocide, while the minority disagreed and argued that Israel was guilty of committing genocide.
Issues Raised by South Africa:
South Africa raised several key issues in the case, including the definition of genocide under the Convention, the application of the Convention to the situation in the Gaza Strip, and the responsibility of the international community to prevent genocide. These issues were central to the arguments presented by both the majority and the minority judgments.
Critical Issues Compared:
1. Definition of Genocide: One of the main issues addressed by both judgments was the interpretation of the definition of genocide as set out in the Convention. The majority held that Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip did not meet the criteria for genocide, as they did not demonstrate the specific intent to destroy a particular group in whole or in part. In contrast, the minority argued that Israel's policies and practices in the Gaza Strip showed a clear intent to destroy the Palestinian population, thus constituting genocide.
2. Application of the Convention: Another important issue was the application of the Convention to the situation in the Gaza Strip. The majority emphasized the importance of approaching each case of alleged genocide on its own merits and applying the criteria set out in the Convention strictly. They concluded that Israel's actions did not amount to genocide based on their interpretation of the evidence presented. On the other hand, the minority took a broader view, arguing that the systematic nature of Israel's policies in the Gaza Strip indicated a pattern of genocidal behavior that warranted condemnation under the Convention.
3. International Responsibility: The judgments also differed on the issue of international responsibility to prevent genocide. The majority emphasized the role of the international community in holding states accountable for their actions and preventing future genocides. They highlighted the importance of diplomacy and international cooperation in resolving conflicts and protecting vulnerable populations. In contrast, the minority took a more critical stance, questioning the commitment of the international community to act decisively in cases of alleged genocide and calling for stronger measures to ensure accountability for such crimes.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the majority and minority judgments in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip-South Africa v Israel case presented diverging views on key issues such as the definition of genocide, the application of the Convention, and international responsibility. While the majority found that Israel's actions did not constitute genocide, the minority disagreed and argued for a broader interpretation of the evidence presented. These differing perspectives reflect the complexities of assessing alleged genocidal behavior and the challenges of addressing such crimes within the framework of international law.