the, the business dw news live from berlin. israel's conduct in gaza comes up for judgments in the us top court. we're about to see live pictures now from the international court of justice. there are moments from announcing whether to order an immediate halt to israel's military action in gaza. south africa wants to investigate claims of genocide against palestinians of the territory, which israel strongly denied the

. i'm sarah kelly, welcome to the program. we're beginning our live coverage right now of a highly anticipated ruling on israel's conduct in gaza. that ruling will come from the us top court, the international court of justice and the hague, which you're seeing in pictures right now. the court could decide to order israel to immediately stop military action and gaza. today's ruling is part of the case brought by south africa against israel, accusing it of committing genocide against palestinians and gaza. know a final decision on whether israel is committing genocide is expected to take years . but again, today is a preliminary rolling on calls for an immediate halt to israel's offensive in gaza . so let's get more as we wait for that announcement. standing by the international court of justice and the hague is dw correspondent, lucio schultz. and so what, what would be the implications for israel if the un judge's order it to halt its

military action? so 1st of all, um, halting the military action is only one of the options that are on the table here. so further, africa has been asking for a number of so called provisional measures. and these are a kind of emergency relief. they're used to not make the dispute, which is on the base verse. and so the for guys been asking for a number of these mattress among them also to hold all military operations. but they have also asked to allow for more humanitarian assistance. and so that these rights are to order to collect evidence for the case that is at the base of this. so as i said, this is one option we would see out of this set, whatever the court, the judge, very legally binding on. he's trial, the court itself does not have a mechanism to enforce the judgements or some say it's a relatively re court. nevertheless, today this years also is stage of the international community if you one so. so

everyone is watching this really closely. a lot of states have been saying that they support either israel or south africa. so venture national communities watching this decision here. and it would create a certain pressure on each trio to also photo its d months. but at this stage is also possible that the court will not order each row to do anything and will follow what israel said, which is that the case should be rejected altogether. although if this needs to be seen, we will know very soon and the court will or the 17 got just entered into the room and give that decision on the provision emetrius what they're saying. and then it had but have the consequences that i just laid out. so we just see the a live pictures there. but right now, of the court room we have to mention, and this you haven't, you mentioned that this is now going to be a process over a number of years. this is merely just the 1st step,

and you just walk us through what we will be seeing transpire now over the years. so this is the 1st step. it's a crash of provision mattress or not. and then if the case would go on and to it's so called marriage phase. uh, that would be, they would start with the papers being exchanged, their birth or the countries would make the case before the code would go into the marriage phase. they would have to 1st decide whether it has jurisdiction or not. and then it would go into this phase where they change the use that would be hearings. and this is a code case here on the merits of the genocide convention and then to to understand what's going on with the genocide convention. it's important to know that this is a treat to you from 1948 to prove genocide, there's a really high threshold because you need to prove that an actor has been planning to extinguish a whole goose. we are going to interrupt you because we've seen the judges now take

their seats and they are beginning to show you. let's have a listen to 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's 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 in the crime genocide to which i shall refer as the genocide convention for the convention. see, 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 $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 of paragraphs 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 in abducting some 240 people, many of whom 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 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 in 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, is limited. as south africa has instituted these proceedings under the genocide convention. so, the court then 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. cream efficient to afford a basis on which its jurisdiction could be founded, 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 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 action. 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 the reservation to article 9 for any other position of the convention. so 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 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. 2 sides must hold. clearly opposite views concerning the question of their performance for 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 the convention of flies while the other denies. since south africa has invoked as a basis for the court's jurisdiction, the complimentary cause 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 rescue and mature. the court recalls that for purposes of deciding whether a dispute existed 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 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 is a matter for objective determination by the court. it is a matter of substance, not a question of form or procedure. so 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 in gaza. 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 have illustrated that israel is acting contrary to its obligations in terms of the genocide convention. and the quote south africa recalled this statement and its note from all 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 is really 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, the accusation of genocide against israel is not only wholly unfounded as a matter of fact and law. it is morally repugnant and a quote in the document. israel also stated that i quote, the accusation of genocide is not just legally and factually incoherent. it is obscene and that there was no valid basis in fact or not,

for the wage discharge of genocide and the quote are invited to 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 agreement facia, the 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, attempt to genocide and complicity in genocide or 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 court's 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 court scheme, at least some of the accident 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 with a case to be removed from the general list. the court turns next to the question of standing himself back, okay. 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. because the v myanmar were article 9 of 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 punish.