- Last week, the South African government presented a case to the International Court of Justice.
- Read more:
What enforcement power does the International Court of Justice have in South Africa's genocide case against Israel?
Defining genocide
The crime of genocide is covered in the 1948 United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It is defined as acts committed with intent to destroy, either in part or in whole, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, including:
killing members of the group
causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about a groups physical destruction, in whole or in part
imposing measures to prevent births
forcibly transferring children.
The Genocide Convention is designed to not only prosecute individuals and governments who committed genocide, but to prevent it from occurring. Therefore, the Convention states that while genocidal acts are punishable, so too are attempts and incitement to commit genocide, regardless of whether they are successful or not.
The South African case
- The South African government argued that Israeli forces had killed 23,210 Palestinians.
- Crucially for the court, South Africa argued Israeli forces were often aware that the bombings would cause significant civilian casualties.
- Beyond the death toll, South Africa argued that there were 60,000 wounded and maimed Palestinians.
- The South African government also alleged the Israeli attacks and the actions of its forces were preventing the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people being met.
The Israeli response
- The Israeli government rejects all of the allegations by South Africa.
- It says the civilian casualties have been an unfortunate consequence of carrying out military operations in an urban environment.
- The Israeli Defence Force also runs a Civilian Harm Mitigation Unit.
- Instead, the court will decide whether the allegations are at the least plausible, and if so, likely order that Israel and Palestine reach an interim ceasefire, and for Israeli forces to take all necessary steps to prevent genocide.
How significant is it?
- That said, the prospect of any ruling by the International Court of Justice having a meaningful impact on the conflict in Gaza is remote.
- The UN and its legal institutions are powered solely by a belief the international community is respectful of international institutions and international law.
- For Israel and for its most powerful supporters, a finding against it by the court would likely be something they dispute and ultimately ignore.
Where does this leave Australia?
- Small to middle powers that rely on international rules to further their interests may be moved to support the cause for a ceasefire more vocally.
- After all, the Australian government supported Ukraine’s case against Russia, also about genocide.
Dean Aszkielowicz has received funding from the Army Research Scheme. Paul Taucher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
