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
provide the exact words on the article
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) case "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip-South Africa v Israel" involved a review of Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip in relation to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The majority and minority judgments presented differing views on key points of contention in the case.
1. Definition of Genocide:
- Majority Judgment: The majority judgment defined genocide as the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of a specific group based on their national, ethnic, racial, or religious identity. The majority found that Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip did not meet this definition of genocide.
- Minority Judgment: The minority judgment argued that Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip constituted genocide, as they believed there was evidence of intent to destroy a specific group based on their national identity. The minority placed emphasis on the disproportionate use of force by Israel and the targeting of civilian populations.
2. Responsibility of the State:
- Majority Judgment: The majority judgment held that while Israel may have committed violations of international law in the Gaza Strip, these actions did not amount to genocide. The majority emphasized the need for clear and convincing evidence of intent to commit genocide in order to establish state responsibility.
- Minority Judgment: The minority judgment placed greater emphasis on the responsibility of the state in preventing genocide. They argued that Israel, as a state, had a duty to protect the civilian population in the Gaza Strip and to prevent actions that could lead to genocide. The minority held Israel accountable for failing to fulfill this duty.
3. Legal Obligations:
- Majority Judgment: The majority judgment emphasized the importance of upholding the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. However, they concluded that the evidence presented did not meet the high threshold required to establish genocide in this case.
- Minority Judgment: The minority judgment stressed the importance of holding states accountable for their actions and fulfilling their legal obligations under international law. They argued that even if the evidence did not conclusively prove genocide, it was essential to address the violations of human rights and ensure accountability for the actions in the Gaza Strip.
In conclusion, the majority and minority judgments in the ICJ case "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip-South Africa v Israel" differed in their interpretations of key legal principles and findings of fact. While the majority focused on the specific elements required to establish genocide, the minority placed greater emphasis on state responsibility and the wider implications of the actions in the Gaza Strip.