Make a detailed comparison between the minority and majority judgements below:
The majority judgement:
The Court recalls that, as underlined in General Assembly resolution 96 (I) of 11 December 1946,
“[g]enocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, results in great losses to humanity in the form of cultural and other contributions represented by these human groups, and is contrary to moral law and to the spirit and aims of the United Nations”.
The Court has observed, in particular, that the Genocide Convention “was manifestly adopted for a purely humanitarian and civilizing purpose”, since “its object on the one hand is to safeguard the very existence of certain human groups and on the other to confirm and endorse the most elementary principles of morality” (Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 23).
66. In view of the fundamental values sought to be protected by the Genocide Convention, the Court considers that the plausible rights in question in these proceedings, namely the right of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III of the Genocide Convention and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the Convention, are of such a nature that prejudice to them is capable of causing irreparable harm (see Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, p 26, para. 70).
67. During the ongoing conflict, senior United Nations officials have repeatedly called attention to the risk of further deterioration of conditions in the Gaza Strip. The Court takes note, for instance, of the letter dated 6 December 2023, whereby the Secretary-General of the United Nations brought the following information to the attention of the Security Council:
“The health-care system in Gaza is collapsing . . .
Nowhere is safe in Gaza.
Amid constant bombardment by the Israel Defense Forces, and without shelter or the essentials to survive, I expect public order to completely break down soon due to the desperate conditions, rendering even limited humanitarian assistance impossible. An even worse situation could unfold, including epidemic diseases and increased pressure for mass displacement into neighbouring countries.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
We are facing a severe risk of collapse of the humanitarian system. The situation is fast deteriorating into a catastrophe with potentially irreversible implications for Palestinians as a whole and for peace and security in the region. Such an outcome must be avoided at all costs.” (United Nations Security Council, doc. S/2023/962, 6 Dec. 2023.)
68. On 5 January 2024, the Secretary-General wrote again to the Security Council, providing an update on the situation in the Gaza Strip and observing that “[s]adly, devastating levels of death and destruction continue” (Letter dated 5 January 2024 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, United Nations Security Council, doc. S/2024/26, 8 Jan. 2024).
69. The Court also takes note of the 17 January 2024 statement issued by the UNRWA Commissioner-General upon returning from his fourth visit to the Gaza Strip since the beginning of despair, with the struggle for survival consuming every hour.” (UNRWA, “The Gaza Strip: a struggle for daily survival amid death, exhaustion and despair”, Statement by Philippe Lazzarini, Commissioner-General of UNRWA, 17 Jan. 2024.)
70. The Court considers that the civilian population in the Gaza Strip remains extremely vulnerable. It recalls that the military operation conducted by Israel after 7 October 2023 has resulted, inter alia, in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries and the destruction of homes, schools, medical facilities and other vital infrastructure, as well as displacement on a massive scale (see paragraph 46 above). The Court notes that the operation is ongoing and that the Prime Minister of Israel announced on 18 January 2024 that the war “will take many more long months”. At present, many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have no access to the most basic foodstuffs, potable water, electricity, essential medicines or heating.
71. The WHO has estimated that 15 per cent of the women giving birth in the Gaza Strip are likely to experience complications, and indicates that maternal and newborn death rates are expected to increase due to the lack of access to medical care.
72. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the Court renders its final judgment.
73. The Court recalls Israel’s statement that it has taken certain steps to address and alleviate the conditions faced by the population in the Gaza Strip. The Court further notes that the Attorney General of Israel recently stated that a call for intentional harm to civilians may amount to a criminal offence, including that of incitement, and that several such cases are being examined by Israeli law enforcement authorities. While steps such as these are to be encouraged, they are insufficient to remove the risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused before the Court issues its final decision in the case.
74. In light of the considerations set out above, the Court considers that there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the Court to be plausible, before it gives its final decision.
The minority judgement:
The Fourth measure obligating Israel to “take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip” has no link with any of the rights purportedly claimed under the Genocide Convention. In other words, under that Convention, a State party has no duty to provide or to enable the provision of, humanitarian assistance, as such. There may be an equivalent duty under IHL but not the Genocide Convention. Besides, there is evidence before the Court that the provision of humanitarian assistance is already taking place with the involvement of Israel and other international organizations, notwithstanding the continuing military operation. The evidence also points to an improvement in the provision of basic needs in the affected areas. This measure too seems unnecessary in the circumstances
The majority judgement and the minority judgement present differing perspectives on the obligations of Israel in providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
The majority judgement emphasizes the fundamental values sought to be protected by the Genocide Convention, highlighting the right of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts. The Court expresses concern over the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, mentioning the collapse of the healthcare system, constant bombardment by the Israel Defense Forces, and lack of access to basic necessities such as food, water, medicine, and shelter. The majority judgement emphasizes the urgency of the situation and the need for immediate action to prevent irreparable harm to the rights of the Palestinians. The Court acknowledges some efforts by Israel to address the conditions faced by the population in the Gaza Strip but considers them insufficient to remove the risk of irreparable prejudice. Therefore, the majority judgement concludes that there is an urgent need for Israel to take immediate and effective measures to address the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.
On the other hand, the minority judgement questions the link between the obligation to provide humanitarian assistance and the rights claimed under the Genocide Convention. The minority judge argues that under the Genocide Convention, a State party does not have a duty to provide humanitarian assistance. The minority judge also points out that there is evidence before the Court indicating that humanitarian assistance is already being provided in the Gaza Strip with the involvement of Israel and other international organizations, despite the ongoing military operation. The minority judge suggests that the fourth measure requiring Israel to provide humanitarian assistance may be unnecessary in the circumstances.
In summary, the majority judgement highlights the urgent need for Israel to take immediate actions to address the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, while the minority judgement questions the necessity of imposing such obligations under the Genocide Convention.