Explained: The ICJ ruling on the genocide case against Israel for its actions in Gaza

Delivering the judgement, ICJ President Joan E Donoghue (from the US) said there is sufficient evidence of dispute for the genocide case to proceed, and that the ICJ has the jurisdiction to rule on the matter.

Here is all you need to know about the World Court’s interim ruling.

Six provisional measures ordered

Delivering its interim ruling, the ICJ ordered six provisional measures.

• A 15:2 majority of the court said that Israel must take all steps in its power to prevent the commission of all acts under Article 2 of the United Nation’s 1948 Genocide Convention. Article 2 defines “genocide” as “acts committed with intent to destroy, wholly or partly, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group”. This not only includes killing and causing bodily and mental harm, but also preventing births within a group and inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about a group’s physical destruction.
• The World Court also said that Israel must prevent its military from committing any genocidal acts “with immediate effect”.
• Sixteen out of 17 judges ruled that Israel must take all steps in its power to prevent and punish, the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
• The court also directed Israel to provide humanitarian assistance and other basic services to the Palestinians in Gaza, referring to Palestinians as a protected group under the Genocide Convention,
• The World Court entrusted Israel with the task of preserving evidence in Gaza related to alleged acts under Articles 2 and 3 of the Genocide Convention, and said that access to such evidence should not be denied by fact-finding missions, international mandates, and other international bodies.
• Lastly, by a 15:2 majority, the court also asked Israel to submit its report to the ICJ on measures taken to implement the ruling within one month.

Decision on jurisdiction

At the outset, the World Court clarified that it does have jurisdiction to consider the present case.

“The Court finds that the aforementioned elements are sufficient, at this stage, to establish the prima facie existence of a dispute between the parties relating to the application of the Genocide Convention”, the court said referring to provisions of Article 9.

Article 9 of the Genocide Convention says that disputes between parties relating to the interpretation, application, or fulfilment of the Convention, including disputes relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide, shall be submitted to the ICJ at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

The court observed that South Africa had publicly made multiple comments suggesting Israel may have acted contrary to its obligations under the Convention, while Israel had dismissed all notions of genocide in Gaza as “morally repugnant”. The court thus concluded that the parties held opposite views concerning Israel’s obligations under the convention, and that this indicated a “dispute” between the two parties.

Join us for Explained Live event on India’s space ambition

Comments on Israel’s actions in Gaza

The court also went on to say that “at least some of the acts and omissions” of Israel appeared to fall within the contours of the Genocide Convention.

The bench pointed to Israel’s large-scale military operation in Gaza by land, air, and sea which caused massive civilian casualties, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and displacement of 1.2 million people in the region.

It also flagged several statements made by senior Israeli officials, including the statement by its defence minister, Yoav Gallant, who ordered a “complete siege” of Gaza and said to the troops in Gaza that they were fighting against “human animals”.

The court said that while Israel said it had made efforts to mitigate harm against civilians, and such steps were welcome, they were not enough. “The humanitarian situation is at serious risk of deterioration before the court renders its final judgement”, the court said.

Citing some letters and statements by high-ranking UN officials about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the court said it was“acutely aware” of the extent of human tragedy in the region and “deeply concerned” about the continuing loss of life and human suffering there.

No call for ceasefire

Notably, the ICJ stopped short of ordering a ceasefire. South Africa’s plea before the court had asked it to order Israel to immediately suspend all military operations in Gaza, as an interim measure.

While many sympathetic to the plight of Gazans have been left disappointed by the court falling short of ordering a cessation of hostilities, experts say that this was very much expected.

Thomas Macmanus, a law professor at Queen Mary University in London, told Al Jazeera he was not surprised that the court did not ask for a ceasefire because, in a way, it would “render Israel defenceless against an attack, and that’s not really within the purview of the court in this case”.

“I never thought the court was going to go as far as to order a ceasefire,” Juliette McIntyre, a lecturer in law at the University of South Australia, told Middle East Eye. “The court is saying we can’t get into the question of the full extent of [Israel’s] rights of self-defence. So we are not going to say anything about a ceasefire,” McIntyre said.

While the court’s rulings are legally binding, it has no way to enforce them. Nonetheless, its opinions carry weight with the UN and other international institutions. The ICJ will eventually decide whether Israel is committing genocide or not, but that process may take years.