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
With reference to the judgments, choose three (3) critical issues that both judgments dealt with and compare them. (Detail)
1. Definition of Genocide:
- Both the majority and minority judgments in the case discussed the definition of genocide as provided for in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The majority judgment focused on the specific acts defined as genocide in the convention, such as killing members of a group and causing serious bodily or mental harm, while the minority judgment emphasized the intent behind these acts and the requirement for them to be committed with the specific intent to destroy a particular group in whole or in part.
2. State Responsibility:
- Both judgments also addressed the issue of state responsibility in the context of genocide. The majority judgment held that states have a responsibility to prevent and punish acts of genocide occurring within their territory or under their control, regardless of whether they were directly involved in the commission of those acts. The minority judgment, on the other hand, argued that states could only be held responsible for genocide if they were found to have committed the acts themselves or were complicit in their commission.
3. Application to the Gaza Strip:
- A key issue discussed in both judgments was the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to the situation in the Gaza Strip. The majority judgment found that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that acts of genocide may have been committed in the region, particularly in relation to the targeting of Palestinian civilians. The minority judgment, however, argued that the evidence presented was not conclusive enough to establish a case of genocide and that further investigation was needed to determine the true extent of the situation.
Overall, while both judgments dealt with similar critical issues related to the definition of genocide, state responsibility, and the application of the convention to the Gaza Strip, they differed in their interpretations and conclusions. The majority judgment took a more assertive stance in holding Israel accountable for potential acts of genocide in the region, while the minority judgment advocated for a more cautious approach and called for further investigation before making any definitive conclusions.