The legal case against Israel explained by a professor of international law

 South Africa claims that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza against the Palestinians. It is therefore asking for interim measures that aim at a cease-fire, recognizing that there must be an immediate cessation, as stated in paragraph 113 of South Africa's submission, of the exceptionally brutal military campaign conducted by Israel in Gaza.

 Both Israel and South Africa are parties to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948). The Convention has an article that states that in the event that disputes arise regarding the interpretation of the terms [of the Convention itself], there is the possibility of referring to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. This is the ploy used by South Africa to advance its request for interim measures.

 The International Court of Justice gives priority to all requests for interim measures in case of an urgent situation. While the timeframe of the judgment of cognition (i.e., the ordinary judgment that determines who is wrong and who is right) is often lengthy – sometimes it takes years – in the case of the provisional measure, the procedure is very expeditious (in a case with some similarities, the case concerning the violation of the Genocide Convention by the Russian Federation, the request for provisional measures was submitted by Ukraine on Feb. 27, 2022, and accepted with by the Court the following March 16 ).

 This is a very legal objection: certainly law can be violated, but one should not confuse effectiveness with validity.

 We will first have to wait for the outcome of the judgment of cognition. These are simply requests for precautionary measures. The next stage will be non-compliance: a different matter, since this is a longer and more complex determination.

Moreover, the Court can go to the Security Council, which can take measures to give effect to the judgment. But at that point evaluations come into play, and not of law, but rather of political expediency: quoting George Orwell, it is true that all states are equal, but there are some that are more equal. (Editor's note: The Security Council consists of 15 members, including the United States, which as a permanent member has veto power. Since 1945, the United States has blocked 34 of 36 proposed resolutions regarding the conflict between Israel and Palestine.) 

 Genocide, from a normative perspective, is an attack aimed at destroying all or part of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such. Art. 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide refers to acts including killing members of the group, injury to physical or mental integrity (amputations, permanent damage, mental trauma...), deliberately subjecting the group to conditions of life intended to cause its total or partial physical destruction (e.g. lack of access to water or food) etc.

 From a judicial policy point of view, it is a very interesting project because it brings into the public debate an element that until now has been profoundly marginal: legal discourse. I am taken aback by the fact that everyone has spoken its mind on Israele, but the role of jurists has been absolutely marginal despite the fact that it is a matter of international law, and there is no doubt about that.

This is a historical example; regardless of the outcome, it is crystal-clear proof that history has not stopped. Here is a state, Israel, whose founding is intimately linked to the birth of the very concept of genocide and which is now being put in the dock for violation of the same, with particular reference to the failure to comply with the obligation to prevent it.