{"id":14525,"date":"2024-02-20T15:26:34","date_gmt":"2024-02-20T21:26:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/?p=14525"},"modified":"2024-02-20T15:26:35","modified_gmt":"2024-02-20T21:26:35","slug":"second-request-for-urgent-interim-measures-before-the-icj-by-south-africa-against-israel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/second-request-for-urgent-interim-measures-before-the-icj-by-south-africa-against-israel\/","title":{"rendered":"Second Request For Urgent Interim Measures Before The ICJ By South Africa Against Israel"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

We share the text written by Professor Nicol\u00e1s Boeglin, from the UCR Law School on the situation of South Africa and Israel. Original title: “Gaza \/ Israel: on the second request for urgent interim measures before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of South Africa against Israel”.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n

\n\n

On February 12, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) announced a second formal request for urgent provisional measures requested by South Africa against Israel after the first one filed on December 29, 2023.<\/p>\n\n

The text of this second request, the full reading of which is recommended, can be consulted at this official ICJ link in french<\/strong><\/a> and in English<\/a><\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n

Second South African Application In Brief<\/h3>\n\n

The text states particularly that the actions planned by Israel in Rafah for the second week of February 2024 must be stopped at all costs in view of the senseless drama they will provoke. This is an area that concentrates a large number of refugees coming from other regions of Gaza previously bombed by Israel since the afternoon\/evening of October 7, 2023:<\/p>\n\n

7<\/em><\/strong>. La R\u00e9publique sud-africaine est gravement pr\u00e9occup\u00e9e par le fait que l\u2019offensive militaire sans pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent contre Rafah, telle qu\u2019elle a \u00e9t\u00e9 annonc\u00e9e par l\u2019\u00c9tat d\u2019Isra\u00ebl, causera en sus de ceux d\u00e9j\u00e0 caus\u00e9s des massacres, dommages et destructions \u00e0 grande \u00e9chelle, en violation grave et irr\u00e9parable tant de la convention sur le g\u00e9nocide que de l\u2019ordonnance rendue par la Cour le 26 janvier 2024. En cons\u00e9quence, et au vu de la situation d\u2019extr\u00eame urgence, la R\u00e9publique sud-africaine demande que la Cour envisage, \u00e0 titre exceptionnel, d\u2019exercer le pouvoir que lui conf\u00e8re le paragraphe 1 de l\u2019article 75 de son R\u00e8glement, qui dispose comme suit : \u00ab La Cour peut \u00e0 tout moment d\u00e9cider d\u2019examiner d\u2019office si les circonstances de l\u2019affaire exigent l\u2019indication de mesures conservatoires que les parties ou l\u2019une d\u2019elles devraient prendre ou ex\u00e9cuter.<\/em><\/p>\n\n

\n

8<\/strong>. La Cour conserve l\u2019enti\u00e8re discr\u00e9tion d\u2019exercer ce pouvoir en l\u2019affaire relative \u00e0 l\u2019Application de la convention pour la pr\u00e9vention et la r\u00e9pression du crime de g\u00e9nocide dans la bande de Gaza (Afrique du Sud c. Isra\u00ebl), sans qu\u2019une audience soit tenue ni que des expos\u00e9s soient pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s par les Parties, et, \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re du pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent que constitue l\u2019affaire LaGrand (Allemagne c. \u00c9tats-Unis d\u2019Am\u00e9rique), il convient qu\u2019elle le fasse, compte tenu de l\u2019extr\u00eame urgence de la situation et du risque imminent de pr\u00e9judice. Comme elle l\u2019a pr\u00e9cis\u00e9 en l\u2019affaire LaGrand, la Cour \u00ab peut, en cas d\u2019extr\u00eame urgence, proc\u00e9der sans tenir d\u2019audience \u00bb \u00e0 l\u2019indication de mesures\u00a0conservatoires, et \u00ab il [lui] appartient \u2026 de d\u00e9cider dans chaque cas si, au vu des particularit\u00e9s de l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, elle doit faire usage dudit pouvoir<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

\n

9.<\/strong>\u00a0En l\u2019affaire LaGrand, la Cour a exerc\u00e9 le pouvoir que lui conf\u00e8re le paragraphe 1 de l\u2019article 75 dans une situation d\u2019extr\u00eame urgence concernant une personne. En la pr\u00e9sente esp\u00e8ce, la situation d\u2019extr\u00eame urgence concerne environ 1,4 million de Palestiniens vuln\u00e9rables \u00e0 Rafah, dont la moiti\u00e9 au moins sont des enfants. Cette population court un risque grave qu\u2019un pr\u00e9judice irr\u00e9parable soit caus\u00e9 \u00e0 son droit d\u2019\u00eatre prot\u00e9g\u00e9e contre des actes de g\u00e9nocide emportant violation des articles II et [III] de la convention sur le g\u00e9nocide par un \u00c9tat dont la Cour a d\u00e9j\u00e0 jug\u00e9 que le comportement constitue plausiblement un manquement aux obligations d\u00e9coulant de cet instrument<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

\n\n
South Africa Israel<\/h6>\n\n
\n

7.\u00a0<\/strong>The Republic of South Africa is gravely concerned that the unprecedented military offensive against Rafah, as announced by the State of Israel, has already led to and will result in further largescale killing, harm and destruction in serious and irreparable breach both of the Genocide Convention and of the Court’s Order of 26 January 2024. Accordingly, and having regard to the situation of extreme emergency, the Republic of South Africa respectfully requests that the Court exceptionally consider exercising its power under Article 75(1) of the Rules of Court. Article 75(1) provides that: “The Court may at any time decide to examine proprio motu whether the circumstances of the case require the indication of provisional measures which ought to be taken or complied with by any or all of the parties.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

8.\u00a0<\/strong>The Court retains full discretion to exercise this power in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), without any hearing or submissions by parties, and should do so, pursuant to the precedent case of LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America),19 given the extreme urgency of the situation and the imminent risk of harm. As stated by the Court in LaGrand, the Court “may, in the event of extreme urgency, proceed without holding oral hearings” to order provisional measures,26 and “it is for the Court to decide in each case if, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, it should make use of the said power?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

\n

9.<\/strong>\u00a0In LaGrand, the Court exercised its Article 75(1) power in a situation of extreme urgency affecting one individual. Here there is a situation of extreme urgency affecting an estimated 1.4 million vulnerable Palestinians in Rafah, at least half of them children. They are at serious risk of irreparable harm to their right to be protected from acts of genocide contrary to Articles II and II of the Genocide Convention, by a State which has already been found by this Court to be acting in plausible breach of its obligations under that Convention<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

South Africa Israel<\/h6>\n\n

We had the opportunity to analyze the scope of the ordinance issued by the ICJ last January 26, which has been ignored by Israel since that date in Gaza: we refer our esteemed readers to a previous note<\/a><\/strong> of ours entitled “Gaza \/ Israel: on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordinance<\/em>“.<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n

An ICJ Ordinance Awaiting Compliance As Of January 26th<\/h3>\n\n

The latest available status report prepared by the United Nations (as of February 14, 2024, see report<\/a><\/strong>) states that Israel’s relentless deadly actions continue with unjustifiable death and injury tolls:<\/p>\n\n