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 before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), both the majority and minority judgments addressed several critical issues regarding the alleged commission of genocide in the Gaza Strip by Israel. Here, we'll compare the two judgments on three key points: jurisdiction, application of the Genocide Convention, and the determination of whether genocide occurred. With reference to the judgments, choose three (3) critical issues that both judgments dealt with and compare them. explain in detail and refers to the article for answer
One critical issue that both the majority and minority judgments addressed 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 is the question of jurisdiction. The majority judgment held that the ICJ had jurisdiction to hear the case, emphasizing that the Genocide Convention applies to all states parties and that the alleged acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip fell within the scope of the Convention. On the other hand, the minority judgment argued that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction, claiming that the alleged acts did not constitute genocide under the Convention and therefore did not fall within the court's jurisdiction.
Another critical issue that both judgments dealt with is the application of the Genocide Convention to the situation in the Gaza Strip. The majority judgment examined the definition of genocide under the Convention, emphasizing the specific acts that constitute genocide, such as killings, causing serious bodily harm, and imposing conditions of life intended to destroy a group. The majority found that Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip did not meet the threshold for genocide under the Convention. In contrast, the minority judgment argued that Israel's actions did amount to genocide, highlighting the impact of the blockade on the civilian population in the Gaza Strip as evidence of genocidal intent.
A third critical issue that both judgments grappled with was the determination of whether genocide had actually occurred in the Gaza Strip. The majority judgment concluded that, while there were serious human rights violations and potential violations of international humanitarian law by Israel in the Gaza Strip, these actions did not rise to the level of genocide. The majority emphasized the need for a high threshold of evidence to prove genocide and found that such evidence was lacking in this case. In contrast, the minority judgment contended that genocide had indeed taken place, pointing to the cumulative impact of Israel's actions on the civilian population in the Gaza Strip as evidence of genocidal intent.
Overall, the comparison of the majority and 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" case reveals differing views on jurisdiction, the application of the Genocide Convention, and the determination of whether genocide occurred. While the majority found that genocide had not been committed in the Gaza Strip, the minority argued that the evidence pointed to genocidal intent on the part of Israel. These differing perspectives highlight the complex and contentious nature of allegations of genocide in situations of conflict.