liked only leaving the other party, free to continue a tax, which has a stated intention to do south africa cannot argue that similar measures were granted in the russia genocide case, that case was fundamentally different. in the russia case, the legality of the military operation itself was an issue. by reference to the genocide convention. russia had claimed that its military operation was to prevent and punish genocide being committed in ukraine. the court found it doubtful that the genocide convention authorizes a unilateral force, you know, actual use of force in the territory of another state and plausible the ukraine had a right not to be subjected to military operations by russia for that purpose. the

result, provisional measures could protect a plausible right not to be subjected to military operations. in this case is royal does not rely on the genocide convention or prevention of genocide to justify itself or ations. the lawfulness of the operations themselves does nothing involve any interpretation. application or fulfilment of the convention, or for which the court has jurisdiction as jurisdiction in this case is based solely on optical 9 of the convention. the court cannot find that south africa, or palestinians in gone, so have a plausible right of the kind. in the russia case, the office is 40. 1 of the statute empowers only such provisional measures as the circumstances require to preserve the respective rights of either

party. in the russia case, a suspension of military operations might have been necessary to preserve a rights not to be subjected to military operations. but in this case, the writing the issue is south africa's claimed right to ensure observance of the genocide convention. it's a good to suggest that the only way to ensure observance of the genocide convention in the military operation is to prevent the operation from being conducted at all in order, according to south africa, to secure the humanitarian response and avoid yet more unnecessary death and destruction that goes beyond preventing genocide, south africa, or p is to argue that the military operation says such

a genocidal. but how has south africa established a plausible claim that this is mr. has same? argued only, but it's plausible quite this, at least some, if not all of the sort by just acts for within the conventions. provisions. how does at least some x turn into the military operations as such the picture showing yesterday a various individual incidents whatever they may or may not say about those incidence? a no evidence of the intent of the military operations as a whole. the professor shaw has addressed you on why the statements of hold as an official positions relied on by south africa. do not establish a plausible claim of genocidal intent. the inevitable fatalities and human

suffering of any conflict is not of itself a pass code of conduct. the plausibly shows genocidal intent. these provisional measures, therefore not within the courts power under optical $41.00 at the statute. they go well beyond anything required to preserve the specific rights in issue. namely, the observance of the convention in military operations. they say instead to shop down the military operations themselves, the requested measures say to reverse the false me a case when provisional measures were ordered, in that case, the conflict was still in progress. the allegations in that case was similar to those made in this case, bosnia and herzegovina, specifically requested a professional measure requiring you can swap you to cease and desist from any and

all types of military or power military activities against the people, state and government of bosnia and herzegovina, but the court did not crunch it, even though, unlike in this case, an ongoing genocide was site to be in progress on the territory of the very state seeking provisional matches and both parties to the conflict. what parties to the case? the court said expressly this, it refused because such a measure would be for the protection of a right that could not form the basis of a judgement in the exercise of jurisdiction under the genocide convention. there is no reason to depart from that case a little. in any event, provisional measures cannot be indicated if, as in this case, they would cause irreparable prejudice to the respondent, or out of proportion with the protection that they were intended to give to the

applicants. the fact is, the provisional measures impose burdens from the policy to which they are addressed in order to protect potentially non existent rights of another party. it would be country to the suffering, the quality of the states. for such persons to be imposed without regard to their effects on the state to which they are addressed. as judge abraham said in the pony mill was case in a request for provisional measures, the court is faced with conflicting rights claimed by the respective parties, and cannot avoid waiting those rights against each other. in the financing of terrorism convention case, judge tompkins said that the court, when considering requests for provisional measures, is expected to weigh and balance the respective rights of the parties. she went on

to note sizing, specific examples that this requirement has been observed in the courts. practice of the cost is made clear in other provisional measures. oh, it does, but it must preserve the respective rights of both parties. it's established, jurisprudence is the article 41 of the statute court has as its subject the preservation of the respective rights claimed by the parties on court. that is to say, both parties the respective rights to be preserved of us. not only the plausible but yet to be determined rights claimed by the applicant, but also the plausible and yet to be determined rights of the respondent. to engaging conduct. the provisional measures would restrain of the international dispute settlement for also balance the interest of both parties. when ordering

provisional measures already a century ago, a mix up a true tribunal recognize the principal, the possible injury to the address see if provisional measures must not be out of proportion with the advantage which the claimant hopes to derive from them. the institute of international law has now recognized the general principle of more the international and national courts and try the nose may prompt interim relief. and as a requirement for such measures, the risk of injury to the applicant must outweigh the risk of injury to the respondent. this principle is also recognized by all the international dispute settlement mechanisms. the other principles supplied when indicating provisional measures that none of the policies can be put to the disadvantage. but measures should not carry beyond what is necessary to retrieve their end. the measures must

not cause a rep for both prejudice to the rights of the respondent. and that any impression of bias must be avoided. these principles all aspects at the most basic and elementary juicy of the court. to ensure equality between the parties are equal 41 that the statute states the provisional measures to preserve the respective rights of either party. it does not refer solely to the rights of the applicant for provisional measures, not to apply such principles with the absurd. suppose that the genocide convention and the court had already phoenix in existence during the 2nd world war. and that the allied powers were room parties to the convention without reservation. while the acts as powers, when not suppose that a neutral stage should bo, proceeding against the allied powers, alleging branches of the genocide convention. and they come dr. facilities and

requesting provisional measures requiring the allies to see soft still if he's immediately inviting pictures of civilian fatalities on suffering and the war as a plausible claim. such provisional measures would have required the allies to surrender should the acts as powers, even though the case against them might laser of being held to be wholly unfounded without any consideration by the court of where the genocide was being committed by the acts as power provisional measures must have the limits who the provisional measure require a state to change its government or to voters in a particular way in the general assembly. the onset must be not. the provisional measures require a state to refrain from exercising a plausible right to defend itself. the answer must be the same. in this case, the balance thing of interest must take into account the following. first come off

is considered to be a terrorist organization by israel and not the states. second, it's undisputed that on 7, i'll tell you about a must committed on these really tara tray, a large scale terrorist attack. this is continuing. 3rd is rails right to conduct the military operations. an exercise of its right to defend itself has been recognized internationally for israel is committed to complying with international humanitarian law. and 5th, israel is taking steps to alleviate the humanitarian situation. the colonel agents and other count so happened will address you on this 6. this is not a case where provisional measures could require 1st policies to a conflict to exercise mutual restraint. they would not be binding on him most. 7th, a must, is made clear, its intention to can,

to carry out continuing attacks against israel and its citizens. 8 provisional measures would deprive israel if the ability to contend with the security threat against more rockets could be fired into its territory. more of its citizens could be taken hostage, raped, and tortured, and further atrocities could be conducted from across the gulf and border. but provisional measures would prevent israel from doing anything. nights provisional measures would end attempts to rescue those already taken hostage. tense. suspension of military operations would give her most space to preserve and build its capabilities, enabling it to powers and even gracious rep, into use remaining hostages box and the trips. it's granted, the result would be this. an organization recognized internationally as terrorist has committed a terrorist atrocity and the territory of the state. and the 3rd state. now 6,

an order from this court that would prevent the attack straight from responding, but which would impose no obligation on those responsible for the attack. the requested measures would not put an end to the conflict, but only to military operations by one party to the conflict. these measures would assist the other party and encourage the commission to further terrorist attacks. in this respect, also, the russia case is fundamentally distinguishable from this case. provisional measures should be a temporary shield to preserve claims, but as yet unproven rights pending a decision on the merits. instead being used here is a sword. to give an advantage to one party and a conflict over and above the rep for both prejudice to israel is obvious. so is the lack of proportionality. madam president,

members of the court is rails position is that there is no conceivable basis on which the 1st 2 provisional measures could be ordered. i turned into the side requested measure. this would require israel to take over reasonable measures to prevent genocide. this is a knowledge as to the 1st provisional measure employee. suppose in your case and the me on my case. there were 2 further objections to this measure. first, it's wording is not confined to the current military operations in jobs, so it's expressed to apply in relation to the palestinian people. generally this arguments the possibilities. felicia claims the actions by israel having nothing to do with gossip, are in breach of this provisional measure. while the convention obligation to prevent genocide may not be confined to current operations in gaza, the subject matter of this case is there is no justification for the professional

measure to extend beyond the claim itself. this particular objection applies also to the 4th and 7th requested measure. as a 2nd objection is that this 3rd provisional measure would impose the same obligation on south africa as well. no reason is given for this. the other requested provisional measures do not apply to south africa. why this one is south africa saying it may fail to comply with its obligation to prevent genocide if not compelled to do so by a provisional measure. unlikely. rather through this provisional measure of south africa or appears to seek a special mandate from the court to act internationally in relation to palestinian issues on the basis that it seeks to prevent genocide. indeed, if south africa's right to bring these proceedings was disputed, south africa might argue that this provisional measure gifts at the right. however, provisional measures cannot confer a special man dates on states and no justification for doing so is established in

any event. the 3rd provisional measure should therefore not be ground to move on to the false requested measure would require israel to desist from committing acts within the scope of optical truth of the convention. there are a fundamental objections to this measure out. first, it has no counterpart in the provisional measures ordered into both in the man my cases. what's the need for this special noval measure? no explanation is given. second, uses the word desist, which implies the violations of the convention by israel recurring its sakes and implied rolling on the merits. in the bosnia case, you decline to cross a provisional measure requested by both and to get in touch the governor. but you can swap, you must cease and desist from all acts of genocide. you should also refuse this request. it's. it's one thing to hold on

a state to comply with its obligations under the convention. it's quite another to imply that the state has failed to do so well. provisional measures without prejudice to the merits. such an implied finding will tarnish the reputation of the respondents state, which is not only on principle, but also unnecessary within the meaning of our people. 41 if the statute to protect claimed rights on an interim basis. so this measure refers to x within the scope of article 2 of the convention. now, although an act is not within the scope of article true unless it's committed with genocide intent, the proposed wording leave scope for south africa subsequently to argue that the words making only the acts themselves with a commissioned with genocidal intent or not imagined transportation. the effect would be to shut down is rails military operation every killing or wounding of an opposing compact and bias really forces every collateral, civilian casualties,

no matter how lawful under international humanitarian law would be. a breach of this provisional measure, even security checks by is really false, is if you monetary and aid entering garza in accordance with international humanitarian law, is recognized by security council resolution 2720. might be argued to be a bridge. the court, the request for this measure should be projected for the same reasons as the 1st and 2nd measures. the next address of the 5th requested measure. this specifies types of acts to be regarded as deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction. for purposes of the 4th provisional measure, this measure is also objectionable. first, it's not for free standing measure, but from the lab or ration to paragraphs the if the false measure, if the false measure is not dropped and granted in the 5th measure falls away.

secondly, no analogy provision is found in the provisional measures order in the pulse and they are in many cases, a nurse special need for such a new measure is established. 3rd is again use as the word desist for its 6 foot impermissible implied rulings on the merits. for instance, it refers to soul cold expulsion and force displacement of palestinians from their homes. this isn't a power in reference to israel's practice of issuing coals for civilians to temporarily evacuate areas of intense soul still as age which is in fact unmeasured to mitigate tom to civilians. this measure thus saith the court's ruling. the evacuation coles amount to expulsion and force displacement of palestinians from their homes. to south africa suggests that israel should cease giving warnings to civilians before military operations. how would that protect the rights the south

africa claims? a similarly power prophecy of this measure? 6, the quotes ruling, the damage to buildings in military operations, presumably even when wolf alonda, international humanitarian law, amount to the destruction of palestinian life and god. so overall paragraphs. you just see if this measure read together with paragraph. see if the 3rd measure sake, the quotes rolling on the merits that are in fact, you ation close the car and humanitarian situation and damage the buildings all amount to deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life within the meaning of optical to see if the convention the reality is that the conflict and the humanitarian situation cannot be resolved during the night. this provisional measure seems designed to ensure that israel will be in breach office, as soon as it has made its sole purpose, seems to be to purchase the merits not to preserve rights on an interim basis for

it should also not be drawn to the 6 requested measure it incorporates 2 separate meshes. the 1st of these would require israel to ensure that it's mimic tray and organizations in person subject to which control do not commit acts folding with the articles 2 or 3 of the convention. it's analogous to the 2nd provisional measure in the both in the and me and my cases respectively. but an objection to this is the reference to any irregular um, 2 units or individuals that may be directed supported or otherwise influenced by israel. this wording has simply been copied from the 2nd provisional measure in the both in the army and my cases. however, in most cases, the application to institution proceedings expressly alleged the existence of a regular units. the reference is inappropriate. in this case, there is no suggestion to forces up as in the israel defense forces on whose

commitment to international humanitarian law you have and will be addressed on today. for the 2nd part of the 6 provisional measure, it contains an obligation to punish genocide. no such provision was included in the boston of your own myanmar. provisional measures or the punishment of genocide is not something that needs to be done urgently in order to protect claim rights on a provisional basis. this measure should also not be drawn to the 7th provisional measure. also, it comprises 2 separate measures. the 1st would require israel to take measures to prevent destruction of evidence. the court has indicated such a measure on 2 recent occasions, but decline to do so. i want to up every cent occasions, despite a specific request by the applicant and the cases where it was prompted, the application of provisional measure, specifically alleged that evidence was being destroyed or concealed. in this case, south africa makes just a fair assertion, but there were serious concerns about the destruction of evidence and its effect on

future investigation into crimes. and the hampering of scrutiny of his royal factions. south africa appears to suggest that the effects of the military operations themselves amount to destruction of evidence making this yet prefer the provisional measure, effectively seeking a suspension of military operations. the prompting of this measure, but implies that there is some reason to suspect concealment of evidence, when in fact none has been identified. this again would be an unprincipled and unnecessary thomas thing of reputation for the 2nd part of this measure would require is re lot to impede access to gals that by fact, finding missions, international mandates and other bodies. however, it is noted 1st that access to gas, it from egypt is under the control of egypt. secondly, israel has no obligation on the international law to allow access from its territory and to gonzo. thirdly, a provisional measures for this effect was requested by the applicant to let me in

my case, and it was not prompted by the court. the need for this measure has not been established. the requested measure would require israel to submit regular reports to the court on measures taken to give effect to the provisional measures. provisions for such reports were made into recent provisional measures orders, but on for other occasions it was refused. despite the things specifically requested by the applicant, the shows that such measures are not routinely granted. they've been gone for the occasionally, when specific action has been indicated in armenia versus as a by john. the court said to the report was necessary in view of the specific provisional measures, it's decided to indicate and in life if the undertakings made by the agent of as a by john south africa does not justify the inclusion of such a measure. there is no shortage of publicly available as writing material and reports about the present situation in gaza to finally,

the 9th requested measure is a non aggravation measure on to a recent occasion. such a measure was specifically requested by the applicants. the not prompted by the court, again, such a measure is not the norm and again south africa does not justify its necessity. provisional measures phenomena aggravation have been indicated in cases where both parties have been directly involved as actors and the facts of the case. and the provisional measures of always applied equally to bodies, passions, stuff, in the end of the court decline to grant such a measure. an obligation of non aggravation cannot fairly be imposed on only one particular case o'reilly one talking to a conflict. if the proposed measure which prompted south africa would remain for you to aggravate its claim. dispute with israel and her mouth would not be impeded from escalating the conflict with israel. the only purpose of this provisional

measure appears to be, to prevent israel from responding to any such escalations. again, there's no justification for this measure. madame president, members of the court, that concludes my arguments on the inappropriateness of the specific measures requested by south africa. by thank you for your careful attention. i invite you to columbus to know i'm her agent of israel, to conclude his royal documents. i think mister staker and i now invite the co agent of israel. mister, glad know i'm to address the court. you have the force or of the done president, members of the courts concert have shown that the applicant has failed to make the case for the indication of provision of the measures. more specifically one the court last spring. refreshing jurisdiction. as the applicant has not shown any

disputes between itself and the respondent at the time the application was submitted. indeed, it tried to mislead the court into believing that one had existed to the applicant has failed to meet the condition of plausible the rights to be protected in the present circumstances. 3, distinct with reality is that the events which are the subject of these proceedings are, according in the framework of a war, instigated by hum us, governed by the legal framework of international humanitarian law. they do not fall within the limits of the genocide convention. for the stunned arts of irreparable harm and urgency is not to move either is ro is constantly taking concrete steps together with others to address the many,

terry and situation in gaza. 5, finally, we have shown that each of the provisional measures thoughts are unwarranted and prejudicial. all these requires that we give attention to 2 fundamental matters arising from these proceedings. the 1st is that the applicant seeks to portray an image of israel as the lawless state. that the regard itself beyond and above the law of the applicant, springs to an image of israel as a state in which the entire public service, military and society having concert, discarded. israel's long spending commitment to law and morality and become single, literally consumed with this drawing and an entire population. that is probably false. i can attest to that 1st hand as the deputy attorney general

for international law. in this position, i regularly advise the government on issues of international law, including humanitarian law. this has not changed since october 7th, the conflict, the conflict we've come us suppose a serious operational and legal challenges in conducting close quarter urban converts while mitigating come to the surroundings and seeking to put a stop to come us military use of hospitals. well, meaning mondays, magazine destruction of medical services and hoping civilians leave areas of the most intense fighting was how much force has been to stay in the line of fire and facilitating the provision of age when that age is constantly stolen by hum us to sustain its military efforts, invalid send you money to air and considerations with the need to act forcefully against an adversary that's to fire rockets deep into our country,

into holes our citizens hostage as the authority responsible for international lloyd vice to is there as a government in cabinets. i can face the thing, contenting with these challenges. is there a remains committed to international when the condoms or in guys of the law is not silent. and this has been the case since is there as a stablish meant to $9.00 to $48.00 the same year the genocide convention was adopted. is there a commitment to the rule of law has remained steadfast throughout our history. despite the complex challenges we face as a nation, it reflects the commitments made at the time the state was established as reflected in our declaration of independence, which makes expressed reference to the principles of the charter of the united nations. in.