“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. 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)
3.1 Background: The "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip-South Africa v Israel" case was brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by South Africa, alleging that Israel had committed genocide in the Gaza Strip. The majority judgment ultimately dismissed the case, while the minority judgment disagreed with this conclusion.
3.2 The issue raised by South Africa: South Africa argued that Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip constituted genocide, as defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The key issue raised by South Africa was whether Israel's actions met the legal definition of genocide under international law.
3.3 Critical issues compared in the judgments:
a) Definition of Genocide: One critical issue addressed in both judgments was the interpretation and application of the definition of genocide under international law. The majority judgment focused on the specific elements of the crime of genocide, such as the intent to destroy a particular group in whole or in part. The majority found that while the situation in the Gaza Strip was undoubtedly tragic, it did not meet the legal threshold for genocide. On the other hand, the minority judgment took a broader view of the definition of genocide, considering factors such as the overall impact on the population and the historical context of the conflict in the region. The minority argued that Israel's actions could be seen as genocidal under this broader interpretation.
b) Responsibility of State: Another critical issue considered in both judgments was the responsibility of the State of Israel for the alleged acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip. The majority judgment emphasized the principle of State responsibility under international law, holding that Israel could only be held accountable for genocide if it could be proven that the State itself had the specific intent to commit genocide. The majority found that there was insufficient evidence to support this claim. In contrast, the minority judgment took a more expansive view of State responsibility, arguing that Israel could be held accountable for acts of genocide committed by its military and government officials, even if there was no direct evidence of intent at the State level.
c) Remedies and Reparations: A third critical issue addressed in both judgments was the question of remedies and reparations for the alleged acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip. The majority judgment ultimately dismissed the case, ruling that there was no basis for finding Israel guilty of genocide. As a result, the majority did not consider the issue of reparations. In contrast, the minority judgment argued that Israel should be held accountable for its actions in the Gaza Strip and called for measures to provide reparations to the victims of the alleged genocide. The minority emphasized the importance of holding States accountable for genocidal acts and providing justice for the victims.
3.4 Conclusion on the major differences between the minority and majority judgments: In conclusion, the major differences between the minority and majority 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 centered on the interpretation of the definition of genocide, the responsibility of the State of Israel for the alleged acts of genocide, and the remedies and reparations for the victims. The majority judgment took a narrow approach to these issues, focusing on the specific legal elements of genocide and State responsibility, while the minority judgment took a more expansive view, considering the broader impact of the actions in the Gaza Strip and advocating for accountability and justice for the victims.