what you hear here from this course, which is the top code in the u. n. system is legally binding on the old 193 members of the united nations. having said that, this is a cold, it doesn't have an army, it doesn't have any sort of forces it can deployed. so although it's legally binding a, there, there are countries, and israel is one in the past 2004. when the court ruled on israel's war, it built, built will build a trust, kind of send you tired, shake the israel to fight the cold. then israel could defy it again. now, the enforcement should come in the un system, the why the un charter is written from the un security council. of course, you know that the un security council has been very divided on this issue of 3 times just one country, one permanent men, but the united states, as use this veto, to block a c spot. if still a very, very big if the court takes the south african side and introduces the major south

africa ones that would put us in a very, very difficult position present button in a very difficult position with regard to what he's going to do now because he would if he went ahead in the security council and almost suddenly if the court rules in south africa's favor someone will bring this back to the security council, you would not only be costing a beat so he'd be defying this court, which is the top code in the u. n. system. now a few months ago i heard the clock bell chime, meaning it is now 1 o'clock, but told this judge is punctual. so any minute. so i think tom, what do you see? the judges, 16 of the 17 who are actually present a going to come into the court room and that will be the start of these proceedings, which we think will go on between 30 to 40 minutes. i did ask the question of one of the cold cold clocks. how easy is this going to be for all of us to understand because this is a legal decision coming from the school, not the final one, but an interim rulings. and i'm told that the presiding judge is very, very keen,

that the language you use is given the enormity of the situation of the interest of a people around the world is going to be excessive. ready they're going to use accessible language. it's so i hope you and me following this and everyone else watching this is going to be able to understand the words of the judge. and exactly what's, what the judges have decided on this occasion. again, be those stress, the points that you'll hear, a preamble about the whole of the case and, and how the court sees the case. and then at the end of the of her speech, show the presiding judge jo donahue. you'll hear what the court has decided which ends as you've been speaking. we have been watching a live shot from inside the court, where we can see as a us, to preparing for that judgement to be night. we've heard over the last few hours from i of correspondence and guess right around the world that have got to stay can what decision is made or announced this afternoon. but can you just give us a little bit of context here just how important is this that

i think is very, very important. indeed. what is interesting is that this is the international court of justice, the top corner of the un system, which traditionally, throughout his history since the you, i'm was great. it mainly dealt with things that were pretty boring and pulling book boring things like breeches of treaties, a border disputes between countries not normally uh, but the, the war, the boys in conflicts. but that was really something this court has dealt with. but what i'm talking about breaches of treaties, that's why in the last couple of years, this code has been used for it use a conflict. and that's because of the genocide convention. it was a pretty landmark, a decision to take the mall to cool reaching the genocide convention. and that happened to provisional measures of action was taken by the code in that case. and again with regard to russia's invasion of ukraine. so those 2 precedents that,

that before this court, and that's why this court is dealing with issues that many would think of more of the area of the other cool cause, remember there are 2 international codes that exist here in what's known as the international city of justice the hey, the other is the international criminal called the international court of justice. deals with countries with member sites of the you and the international criminal court. that's the one that deals with individuals. remember, there's a case out, an arrest warrant out for blood and it boots it with regard to the war and you crate for the international criminal court. okay. i think is interesting. is this court civic, if you can. so we go to the judges, have just taken this states, we're going to take you to inside the international court of justice in the hike with the judges are about to read out the preliminary verdict over this case score by south africa. let's listen intervention and punishment of the crime of genocide in the gaza strip south africa versus israel. so judge robinson,

who duly participated in both the deliberation and the final vote. these for reasons made known to me unable to take his seat on the fence today. i would like to welcome the eminent representatives of the republic of south africa and the state of israel were in the great hall and just say in particular, i recognize the presence of your excellency, miss lady pond, or minister of international relations and cooperation of the republic. of south africa. i recall that on 29 december 2023 south africa filed in the registry of the court. an application instituting proceedings against israel. concerning alleged violations in the gaza strip of obligations under the convention on the prevention and punishment and the crime genocide. to which i shall refer as the genocide convention for the convention. the application of south africa

contained a request for the indication of provisional measures submitted with reference to article $41.00 of the statute and to articles of $7374.75 of the rules of court. in accordance with the usual practice, i shall not read the introductory paragraphs of the order which set out the procedural history of the case. i feel also omit or summarize some other paragraphs . i shall therefore begin the reading of the order a paragraph 13 in the order. the court begins by recalling the immediate context in which the present case came before it. it observes that on 7 october 2023, a mouse and other arm groups present in the gaza strip. carried out and attacking israel, killing more than 1200 persons injuring thousands and abducting some 240 people. many of them continue to be held hostage following this attack. israel launched

a large scale military operation in casa by land, air, and sea, which is causing massive civilian casualties, extensive destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the displacement of the overwhelming majority of the population in gaza. the court is acutely aware of the extent of the human tragedy that is in unfolding in the region and is deeply concerned about the continuing loss of life and human suffering. the ongoing conflict in gaza has been addressed in the framework of several organs and specialized agencies of the united nations. in particular, reservations have been adopted by the general assembly and the security council of the united nations referring to many aspects of the conflict. the scope of the present case submitted to the course, however, it is limited. a south africa has instituted these proceedings under the genocide

convention. the court vend turns to the conditions needed to be fulfilled in order for it to indicate provisional measures. with respect to the question of premeditation jurisdiction, the court observes that it may indicate provisional measures only if the provisions relied on by the applicant appear premeditation to afford a basis on which its jurisdiction could be found. it but it need not satisfy itself in the definitive matter that it has jurisdiction. as regards the merits of the case. in the present case, south africa seeks to found the jurisdiction of the court on article $36.00 paragraph one of the statute of the court. and on article 9 of the genocide convention, the court must therefore 1st determine whether those provisions presentations, confer upon it jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case, enabling it if the other necessary conditions are fulfilled. to indicate provisional measures. article 9 of the genocide convention provides. i quote,

the disputes between the contracting parties relating to the interpretation application or fulfillment of the present convention. including those relating to the responsibility of a state for genocide or for any of the other acts. numerated in the article 3 shall be submitted to the international court of justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute and of quote south africa and israel are both parties to the genocide convention. neither of them has entered a reservation to article 9 for any other condition of the convention. the court then recalls that article 9 of the genocide convention makes this jurisdiction conditional on the existence of a dispute relating to the interpretation application or fulfillment of the convention. a dispute is a disagreement on a point of law or fact,

a conflict of legal views or of interest between parties. in order for a dispute to exist, it must be shown that the claim of one party is positively opposed by the other. the 2 sides must fold clearly opposite views concerning the question of their performance or non performance of certain international obligations to determine whether a dispute exists in the present case, the court cannot limit itself to noting that one of the parties maintains that convention applies while the other denies, since south africa has invoked as a basis for the court's jurisdiction, the complimentary funds of the genocide convention. the court must also ascertain at the present stage of the proceedings whether it appears that the accidental emissions complained of by the applicant are capable of falling within the scope of that convention recipe on material to the court recalls that for purposes of deciding whether a dispute existing between the parties at the time as the filing of the application

. it takes into account in particular, any statements or documents exchanged between the parties, as well as any exchange is made in multilateral settings. in so doing the pay special attention to the author of the statement or document it's intended or actual addressing. and it's content. the existence of a dispute as a matter for objective determination by the court. it is a matter of substance, not a question of form or procedure. the court notes that south africa issued public statements in various multilateral and bilateral settings, in which it expressed its view that light of the nature scope and extent of israel's military operations. and guys of israel's actions amounted to violations of its obligations under the genocide convention. for instance, at the resumed 10th emergency special session of the united nations general assembly on 12 december 2023 at which israel was represented. the south african

representative to the united nations stated that i quote, the events of the past 6 weeks in gaza. of illustrated that israel is acting contrary to its obligations in terms of the genocide convention. and the quote south africa recalled the statement from its note for a ball of 21 december 2023 to the embassy of israel in pretoria. the court notes that israel dismissed any accusation of genocide in the context of the conflict in gaza in the document published by the israeli ministry of foreign affairs. on 6th, december 2023, which was subsequently updated and reproduced on the website of the israel defense forces. on 15th december 2023 under the title, the war against from us answering your most pressing questions, stating that i quote, steve accusation of genocide against israel is not only wholly unfounded as a matter of fact and law. it is morally repugnant and of quote. in the document,

israel also stated that i quote, the accusation of genocide is not just legally and factually incoherent. is obscene, and that there was no valid basis in fact or law for the outrages charge of genocide. and of course, in light of the foregoing, the court considers that the parties appear to hold clearly opposite views as to whether certain acts or emissions allegedly committed by israel in gaza, amount to violations by the letter of its obligations. under the genocide convention, the court finds that the aforementioned elements are sufficient at this stage to establish a prima facia existence of a dispute between the parties relating to the interpretation application or fulfilment of the genocide convention. as to whether the acts and emissions complained of by the applicant appear to be capable of falling within their

positions of the genocide convention. the court recalls that south africa considers israel to be responsible for committing genocide in gaza and for failing to prevent and punish genocidal acts south africa contents that israel has also violated other obligations under the genocide convention. including those concerning conspiracy to commit, genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempted genocide and complexity and genocide. at the present stage of the proceedings, the court is not required to ascertain whether any violations of israel's obligations under the genocide convention has occurred. such a finding could only be made by the court at the stage of the examination of the merits of the present case. at the stage of making an order on the request for an indication of provisional measures, the course task is to establish whether the acts and emissions capable, sorry, complained of by the applicant appear to be capable of falling within the

provisions of the genocide convention. in the courts few at least some of the accidental emissions alleged by south africa has been committed by israel in gaza, appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the conventions. in light of the phone. the court concludes that prima facia, it has jurisdiction pursuing to article 9 of the convention to entertain the case. given this conclusion, the court considers that it cannot a seat, israel's request that the case to be removed from the general list. the court turns next to the question of standing south africa court notes that the respondent did not challenge the standing of the applicant in the present proceedings. in the case concerning application of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide economy a v myanmar were article 9 and the genocide was genuine. as the genocide convention

was also involved, the court observed that all states parties to the convention have a common interest to ensure the prevention, suppression, and punishment of genocide by committing themselves to fulfilling the obligations contained in the convention. as such, common interest implies that the obligations in question are owed by any state party to all the other state parties to the relevant convention. their obligations area on this part is in the sense that each state party has an interest in compliance with them in any given case. the common interest in compliance with the relevant obligations under the genocide convention entails that any state party without distinction is entitled to invoke the responsibility of another state, party, for and alleged for each of its obligations area on this part is. accordingly, the court found that any state parties with the genocide convention may invoke the

responsibility of another state party, including through the institutional proceedings before the court. with a view to determining the alleged failure to comply with its obligations, error on his part is under the convention and to bring the failure to the end. the court concludes prima facia that south africa has standing to submit to it. the dispute with israel concerning alleged violations of obligations under the genocide convention. the court then turns to the question of the rights whose protection is sought in the link between such rights and the measures requested. it recalls that its power to indicate provisional measures under article $41.00 of the statute has as its object, the preservation of the respective rights claimed by the parties in a case, pending its decision on the merits. there it follows that the court must be concerned to preserve by such measures the rights which may subsequently be judged

by it to belong to either party. therefore, the court may exercise this power only if it is satisfied at the right to started by the party requesting such measures or at least possible at this stage of the proceedings. however, the court is not called upon to determine definitively whether the rights which south africa wishes to see protected desist it need only decide whether the rights claimed by south africa and for which at 6 protection are possible. more over a link metrics must exist between the rights has protection sought and the provisional measures being requested. the court recalls that in accordance with the article, one of the convention, all states parties there to have undertaken to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide. article to provides that i quote, genocide means any of the following acts committed within 10 to destroy in whole or in part a national s nicole racial or religious group as such. a killing members as

a group be causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. see deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction and holler in part d. imposing measures intended to prevent 1st within the group e, forcing forcibly transferring children as a group to another group. and of course, pursuing to article 3 of the genocide convention. the following acts are also prohibited by the convention conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit the genocide attempt to commit genocide and complicity in genesis. so the provisions of the conventions are intended to protect the members of a national ethnical racial or religious group. from acts of genocide or any other

punishable acts enumerated in article 3. the court considers that there is a correlation between the rights of our members of groups protected under the genocide convention. the obligations incumbent on state parties there too, and the right of any state party to see compliance there with by another state party. as the court has stated, in other cases, in order for acts to fall within the scope of article 2 of the convention, the intent must be to destroy at least a substantial part of a particular group. this is demanded by the very nature of the crime of genocide. since the object and purpose of the convention as a whole is to prevent the intentional destruction of groups. the parts are part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole. the palestinians appear to constitute a distinct national ethnical, racial or religious group enhancer protective group. within the meaning of article

2 of the genocide convention, the court observes that according to united nations sources, the palestinian population in the gaza strip comprises over 2000000 people. palestinians in the gaza strip formed a substantial part of the protective group. the court notes that the military operation being conducted by israel following the attack of 7 october 2023 has resulted in a large number of destin injuries as well as massive destruction of homes, the forcible displacement of the vast majority of the population and extensive damage to civilian infrastructure as well. seekers relating to the guys are strict cannot be independently verified. recent information indicates that 25700007 killed. over 63000 injuries had been reported over 360 housing units had been destroyed or partially damaged. and approximately

1700000 persons have been internally displaced. the court takes note in this regard of the statements by the united nations under secretary general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator. mr. martin griffith on 5 january 2024. i quote because it has become a place of death and despair. families are sleeping in the open as temperatures plumbing areas where civilians were told to relocate for their safety have come under the environment. medical facilities are under relentless attack. a public health disaster is unfolding. gotcha, has simply become uninhabitable fits people are witnessing daily threats to their very existence, while the world watches in a cult, following emissions in north casa, the world health organization reported that as of 21 december 2023. i quote,

an unprecedented 93 percent of the population of kaiser is facing crisis levels of hunger, with insufficient food and high levels of malnutrition and of quote. the court further notes the statement issued by the commissioner general of the united nations relief and works agency for palestine in palestine. refugees in the near east or under mister from the plaza, really. on 13 january 2024. i quote, it's been 100 days since the devastating war started killing and displacing people in gaza. following the risk of attacks from us and other groups carried out against people in israel. it's been $100.00 days of ordeal and anxiety for hostages and their families. in the past 100 days sustain been pardoned across the guys are stripped call cause the massive displacement of population that is in

a state of flux, constantly uprooted and forced to leave overnight only to move to places which are just as unsafe. this were affected more than 2000000 people. the entire population of gaza. menu will carry lifelong scars. both physical and psychological. vast majority, including children, are deeply traumatized. overcrowded and unsanitary unrest shelters have become home to more than 1400000 people. they lack everything from food to hygiene to privacy. people live in, in humane conditions. where's diseases are spreading? including level children. they live through the unlivable and the with the clock ticking fast towards family. the plight of children and guys, it is especially hard break. an entire generation of children is traumatized and will take years to heal. thousands have been killed, named and orphaned. hundreds of thousands are deprived of education. their future

is in jeopardy with far reaching and long lasting consequences. the unreal commission in general also stated that the crisis in gaza is i quote, compounded by the humanizing language and the quote. in this regard, the court has taken note of a number of statements made by senior israeli officials. it calls attention in particular to the following examples. on 9 october 2023. mister, you'll have kalonde defense minister of israel, announced that he had ordered a complete siege of guys, a city. and there then that there would be no electricity, no food, no fuel, and that everything was closed. on the following day minister, golan stated, speaking to his rarely troops on the guys and border. i quote, i have released all restraints. you saw what we are fighting against. we are

fighting human animals. this is the isis of gaza. this is what we are fighting against. causes return to what it was before. there will be no home us. we will eliminate everything. if it doesn't take one day, it will take a week, it will take weeks or even months, we will reach all places, end of quote. on 12 october 2023. mister isaac hertzog, president of israel stated, referring to gaza. quote. we are working operating militarily, according to rules of international law, unequivocally. it is an entire nation out there that is responsible. it is not true . this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. it is absolutely not true. they could have risen up. they could have fought against that evil regime, which took over guys are included time. but we are at more, we are at war. we are or we are defending our homes. we are protecting our homes.

that's the truth. and when a nation, texas home, it fights and we will fight until we break their backbone. and the quote. on 13 october 2023, mister israel caught then minister of energy and infrastructure of israel stated on x, formerly twitter, i quote. so we will cite the terrorist organizations from us and destroy all the civilian population in guys that is ordered to leave immediately. we will, when they will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world. and of course, the court also takes note of a press release of 16 november 2023, issued by 37 special rapid tours independent experts and members of working groups, part of the special procedures of the united nations human rights council, in which they voice alarm over i quote,

discernibly genocidal and dehumanizing rhetoric coming from senior israeli government officials. and of course, in addition, on 27, october 2023. the united nations committee on the elimination of racial discrimination observed that it was highly concerned about the sharp increase in races. kate speech and dehumanization directed at palestinians since 7 october in the courts. few, the aforementioned facts and circumstances are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by south africa and for which it is taken. protection are plausible. this is the case with respect to the right of palestinians and gaza, to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified an article 3 and the right of south africa seek israel's compliance with the latter's obligations under the convention. the court ventures to the condition of the link

between the plausible rights claimed by south africa and the provisional measures requested. so it considers that by their very nature, at least some of the provisional measures sought by south africa, are aimed at preserving the plausible rights in a search on the basis of the genocide convention. in the present case, namely the right of the palestinians in gotcha to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts mentioned in article 3 and the right of south africa to seek israel's compliance with the letters obligations under the convention. therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by south africa that the court has found to be plausible, and at least some of the provisional measures requested. the court turns next to the question of risk of a referable prejudice and urgency. it notes that pursuant to article $41.00 of it

statute, it 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 might entail irreparable consequences . however, the power of the court to indicate provisional measures will only be exercised if there's urgency in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that a rep and we'll prejudice will be cause to the rights claimed before the court gives its final decisions. the condition of urgency is met when the ex, susceptible of causing irreparable prejudice can occur at any moment before the court makes the final decision the case. the court must therefore consider whether such a risk exists at this stage of the proceedings. the court is not called upon for 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, it was already noted. the court cannot at this stage, make definitive finances fact. and the right of each party to submit arguments with respect to the merits remains unaffected by the court's decision. on the request for the indication of provisional measures, the court recalls that as underlined. den.