greg macdougall (613)
@equitableeducation.ca
8 followers
12 following
51 posts
starter account for now
Posts
Media
Videos
Starter Packs
![[Note: the word "plausible" is highlighted at the end of the first sentence here]
54. In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude
that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are
plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from
acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III, and the right of South Africa to
seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the Convention.
55. The Court now turns to the condition of the link between the plausible rights claimed by
South Africa and the provisional measures requested.
* *
56. South Africa considers that a link exists between the rights whose protection is sought and
the provisional measures it requests. It contends, in particular, that the first six provisional measures
were requested to ensure compliance by Israel with its obligations under the Genocide Convention,
while the last three are aimed at protecting the integrity of the proceedings before the Court and
South Africa’s right to have its claim fairly adjudicated.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:4od47dvjgrd72dzdj5nahlzh/bafkreif5sl4giceuvx4zwlqk33mtajilhliopqvrt6kix7ohkrmfkecm64@jpeg)
![[Note: it is the final point in this screenshot, #74, that includes the decision on "real and imminent risk."]
on 18 January 2024 that the war “will take many more long months”. At present, many Palestinians
in the Gaza Strip have no access to the most basic foodstuffs, potable water, electricity, essential
medicines or heating.
71. The WHO has estimated that 15 per cent of the women giving birth in the Gaza Strip are
likely to experience complications, and indicates that maternal and newborn death rates are expected
to increase due to the lack of access to medical care.
72. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the catastrophic humanitarian situation in
the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the Court renders its final judgment.
73. The Court recalls Israel’s statement that it has taken certain steps to address and alleviate
the conditions faced by the population in the Gaza Strip. The Court further notes that the Attorney
General of Israel recently stated that a call for intentional harm to civilians may amount to a criminal
offence, including that of incitement, and that several such cases are being examined by Israeli law
enforcement authorities. While steps such as these are to be encouraged, they are insufficient to
remove the risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused before the Court issues its final decision in
the case.
74. In light of the considerations set out above, the Court considers that there is urgency, in
the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights
found by the Court to be plausible, before it gives its final decision.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:4od47dvjgrd72dzdj5nahlzh/bafkreihuqjbxd7gdwr7ntoysgoirse56djqyhezfhcaxrkod2xkly63h6a@jpeg)
![- 14 -
South Africa stresses that any stated intention by the Respondent to destroy Hamas does not preclude
genocidal intent by Israel towards the whole or part of the Palestinian people in Gaza.
*
39. Israel states that, at the provisional measures stage, the Court must establish that the rights
claimed by the parties in a case are plausible, but “[s]imply declaring that claimed rights are plausible
is insufficient”. According to the Respondent, the Court has also to consider the claims of fact in the
relevant context, including the question of the possible breach of the rights claimed.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:4od47dvjgrd72dzdj5nahlzh/bafkreieg2ikzysqdp22p74ppyvmtw3ajzw73idcckliggadc4nd2q6e3ei@jpeg)
![V. RISK OF IRREPARABLE PREJUDICE AND URGENCY
60. The Court, pursuant to Article 41 of its Statute, has the power to indicate provisional
measures when irreparable prejudice could be caused to rights which are the subject of judicial
proceedings or when the alleged disregard of such rights may entail irreparable consequences (see,
for example, Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 March
2022, I.C.J. Reports 2022 (I), p. 226, para. 65).
61. However, the power of the Court to indicate provisional measures will be [HIGHLIGHTED:] exercised only
if there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will
be caused to the rights claimed before the Court gives its final decision [END HIGHLIGHTED SECTION]. The condition of urgency is
met when the acts susceptible of causing irreparable prejudice can “occur at any moment” before the
Court makes a final decision on the case (Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional
Measures, Order of 16 March 2022, I.C.J. Reports 2022 (I), p. 227, para. 66). The Court must
therefore consider whether such a risk exists at this stage of the proceedings.
62. The Court is not called upon, for the purposes of its decision on the request for the
indication of provisional measures, to establish the existence of breaches of obligations under the
Genocide Convention, but to determine whether the circumstances require the indication of
provisional measures for the protection of rights under that instrument. As already noted, the Court](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:4od47dvjgrd72dzdj5nahlzh/bafkreiexlpmmikbd67ug2wnpjeirsfke77dda2mrnfxi4zwox4y7icztpa@jpeg)
