“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.
2. The essay MUST contain 2000 words
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:
In the case of 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, South Africa brought a case against Israel alleging that Israel had committed acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip. The Court was asked to determine whether Israel had violated the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and if so, what remedies should be provided.
3.2 The issue raised by South Africa:
The main issue raised by South Africa was whether Israel had committed acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip. South Africa argued that Israel's actions, such as the widespread bombing of civilian areas and the targeting of hospitals and schools, amounted to genocide under the Convention.
3.3 Critical Issues:
a) Definition of Genocide:
One critical issue in the case was the interpretation of the definition of genocide under the Convention. The majority judgment focused on the strict interpretation of the definition, requiring proof of specific intent to destroy a particular group in whole or in part. The majority found that there was insufficient evidence to prove this specific intent on the part of Israel. On the other hand, the minority judgment took a broader view of the definition, considering the overall impact of Israel's actions on the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip. The minority argued that the cumulative effect of Israel's actions could be considered genocide, even without direct evidence of specific intent.
b) Responsibility of State:
Another critical issue in the case was the responsibility of the State for acts of genocide. The majority judgment emphasized the principle of State responsibility, holding that individual actions of soldiers or military personnel could not be attributed to the State unless there was clear evidence of official policy or direction. The majority found that there was no evidence of a State policy or plan to commit genocide in the Gaza Strip. In contrast, the minority judgment argued that the State could still be held responsible for acts of genocide committed by its agents, even without explicit official policy. The minority took a more expansive view of State responsibility in cases of genocide.
c) Remedies:
The third critical issue in the case was the question of remedies for any finding of genocide. The majority judgment focused on the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of States, cautioning against interference in the sovereignty of Israel. The majority suggested that diplomatic and political measures should be pursued to address the situation in the Gaza Strip, rather than legal remedies. The minority judgment, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of holding States accountable for acts of genocide and providing appropriate remedies to victims. The minority advocated for stronger measures to address the situation in the Gaza Strip, including potential sanctions or intervention by the international community.
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 can be summarized as follows:
- The minority judgment took a broader view of the definition of genocide, considering the overall impact of Israel's actions on the Palestinian population.
- The minority judgment held a more expansive view of State responsibility for acts of genocide, while the majority emphasized the need for clear evidence of official policy or direction.
- The minority judgment advocated for stronger measures and remedies in cases of genocide, while the majority emphasized non-intervention in the internal affairs of States.