This has to be leading in the “most unlikely headline” competition (if there is such a competition). There’s a lot to wrap my head around as I try to understand the complexities of international affairs these days – but I’m going to try.
International Court of Justice
First, we need to identify this organization. Also called the World Court, this is a principal organ of the United Nations, charged with settling disputes in accordance with international law and giving advisory opinions on international legal issues. It consists of a panel of 15 judges elected by the UN General Assembly and Security for five-year terms. To ensure continuity, one-third of the court is elected every three years. In November of 2023, the General Assembly and Security Council elected the following five people for a term of five years, beginning on February 6, 2024: Judge Hilary Charlesworth (Australia) was re-elected as a Member of the Court. Mr Bogdan-Lucian Aurescu (Romania), Ms Sarah Hull Cleveland (United States of America), Mr Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo Verduzco (Mexico) and Mr Dire Tladi (South Africa).
Genocide
In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of the five “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” These five acts were killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. The need for an international agreement about the meaning of genocide and the willingness of the nations of the world to hold each other accountable for potentially genocidal acts arose because of the Holocaust, but it can be applied to any acts that meet the definition.
There have been relatively few cases in which the ICJ was asked to rule about accusations of genocide:
1993 – filed by Bosnia and Herzegovina against Yugoslavia/Serbia
2015 – filed by Serbia and Croatia against each other
2019 – filed by Gambia against Myanmar over its treatment of the Rohingya, an ethnic minority in Myanmar. This was the first genocide case brought against a country by a nation in another continent that is not a party to the conflict and is not directly affected by the conflict in question
The newest charge, by South Africa against Israel, is similar to the charge by Gambia against Myanmar.
The first hearing in this case was held on January 11, 2024. South Africa accused Israel of carrying out genocide in Gaza and demanded that the U.N.'s top court order an emergency suspension of Israel's devastating military campaign in the Palestinian enclave. South Africa’s 84-page application to the ICJ alleged that Israel's actions "are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group.” In a statement that initially seemed bizarre to me, the incumbent South African president Cyril Ramaphosa compared Israel’s actions to apartheid. The podcast that I refer to below helped me understand this comparison.
South Africa’s petition went into great detail in requesting provisional measures of protection, including suspension of military operations and an overall ratcheting-down of hostilities in the area. South Africa’s case has been supported by more than 30 nations – all of them in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, or Latin America. Belgium and Slovenia are the only two European countries that have shown signs of supporting the suit, although their governments have not yet formally announced their positions. Thirteen countries have announced their opposition to the suit, including major European countries, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States.
South Africa?
At first, I was puzzled by South Africa’s role in this case. Until the mid-1990s, South Africa was ruled by a ruthless apartheid regime that institutionalized extreme racial segregation, and it’s hard for me to get away from that perception of the government of South Africa. After 1990, the governing and economic systems of South Africa showed great promise, as the nation grew to be a significant regional power, with the third-largest economy in Africa and a commitment to international organizations like the G20. However, it continues to experience serious problems of crime and inequality, although in 2022 the World Economic Forum warned that South Africa is showing signs of state collapse.
The current leadership of South Africa was not part of the governing elite under apartheid, and they had first-hand experience of living under a harsh regime that focused on denying rights to a large percentage of the people living in the country. South Africa identifies with the struggle of the Palestinians in Gaza and wants the world to pay attention.
This doesn’t even get into the historical irony of these charges being brought against the state of Israel, which came into existence as a result of the same collective international recognition – that the Holocaust cannot be allowed to recur – that created the ICJ in the first place.
Wednesday’s Pod Save the World episode includes a 25-minute interview with Oona Hathaway, Director of the Center for Global Legal Challenges at Yale Law School, in which they discuss South Africa’s charges of genocide against Israel at the ICJ. The first 30-minute segment of the episode focuses on the war in Gaza, including a discussion of who the Houthis are and why they will be difficult to defeat. It’s worth a listen. If you want to listen just to the interview about the ICJ case, it starts at the 50:10 point in the video.
If you want to know more, you can read Oona Hathaway’s recent article in Just Security. I haven’t read the entire article yet, but the podcast points out that it places the current ICJ case in the larger context of overall Israel-US relations.
The Guardian just posted an article on Netenyahu’s declaration of never supporting two states. He has now placed the US in the same position Israel was in after Hamas’s attack—a no-win situation. This saddens me because I supported the administration’s continued aid to Israel. And I support Israel’s right to exist. But Netanyahu is making our support blood splattered.
Thank you for writing on this topic. The thousands of years of history in this area is broad and deep--and not reported. When I witnessed W&M students defending the people of Gaza, I understood their horror, but disagreed with them. Israel is a tinder box with a problematic PM (oh, really). The surprise attack of October 7 was horrifying. I feel as though many are reporting the attacks on Gaza now in a way that, in addition to factual information, the writers are dealing with the question of proportionality. It sounds cold, but Israel had no choice but to respond to the attack, though it was a no-win situation. Hamas has made the decision to intentionally use aid money to build tunnels and escape routes under populated civilian areas in Gaza. Gaza has suffered in their two relationships: Israel and Hamas. Israel has the right to survive. Palestine has the right to survive. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis must constantly be strongly pushed back for the next thousand years until Israelis and Palestinians can live within proximity to each other.