formations by one party to the only leaving the other party, free to continue a tax, which it has a stated intention to do. south africa cannot argue that similar measures for 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 its operations. the lawfulness of the operations themselves does not involve any interpretation, application or fulfilment of the convention over which the court has jurisdiction. as jurisdiction in this case is based solely on optical 9 of the convention of the court cannot find that south africa or palestinians in gun. so have a plausible right of the kind in the russia case, article 41. if the statute empowers only such provisional measures as the

circumstances require to preserve the respective rights advise of policy. 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 rights and the issue is self africa's claim to ride 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 seen? argued only that it's plausible, quite this, at least some, if not all of these are arranged acts for within the conventions. provisions. how does, at least some ex, turn into the military operations as such the picture showing yesterday as various individual incidents, whatever they may or may not say about those incidents are not evidence of the intent of the military operations as a whole. professor shaw has addressed you on why the statements of how it is an official positions relied on by south africa. the not the stablish a plausible claim of genocidal intent. the inevitable fatalities and human

suffering of any conflict is not of itself. a pattern of calm talk plausibly shows genocidal intent. these provisional measures of therefore, not within the courts power on the article $41.00 that the statute. they carry well beyond anything required to preserve the specific rights and issue. namely, the observance of the convention in military operations. they say instead to shut down the military operations themselves. the requested measures say to reverse the balls in your 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 provisional measure requiring you to sloppier 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 measures and both parties to the conflict. to what parties to the case. the court said expressly this, it refused, because such a measure would be for the protection of our right. it could not form the basis of a judgement in the exercise of jurisdiction unto 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 pride,

judas to the respondents or out of proportion with the protections that they are intended to give to the applicants. the fact is, the provisional measures impose burdens on the policy to which they are addressed in order to protect potentially nonexistent rights of another party. it would be concrete of the software and the quality of 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 professional measures, is expected to weigh and balance the respective rights of the parties. he went on

to note citing specific examples that this requirement has been observed in the courts practice. the cost is made clear in other provisional measures. oh it is. it must preserve the respective rights of 1st parties. it's established jurisprudence is the article $41.00 of the structured quote has as its subject, the preservation of the respective rights claimed by the parties. and quite that is to say, 1st policies 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 a balance. the interest of both parties,

when ordering professional measures already a century ago, a mixed up a true tribunal recognize the principle to the possible injury to the address. the provisional measures must not be out of proportion with the advantage which the claimant hopes to derived 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 dropped into him 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, this principle is also recognized by all the international dispute settlement mechanisms. other principles applied when indicating professional measures that none of the parties to the disadvantage measure should not carry beyond what is

necessary to retrieve their end. the measures must not cause the preferable prejudice to the rights of the respondent. and that any impression of bias must be avoided. these principles of all aspects of the most basic and elementary juicy of the court to ensure or equality between the parties are equal $41.00 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 professional measures. not to apply such principles which the observer supposed that the genocide convention and the court had already been unique in existence during the 2nd world war. and that the allied powers barone parties to the convention without reservation. while the axis powers were not supposed as a neutral station for proceedings against the allied powers alleging branches of

the genocide convention. and they come doctor facilities and requesting provisional measures requiring the allies to see saw still the seas immediately inviting pictures of civilian fatalities and suffering in the war. as a plausible claims, such provisional measures would have required the allies to surrender should the axis powers. even though the case against the 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 powers, provisional measures must have their limits. could the provisional measure require a state to change its government or to vote in a particular way in the general assembly? the onset must be the can 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, from us is considered to be a terrorist organization by israel and other states. second, it's on distribution that on sep, and i'll tell you about a must committed on his regular territory a large scale terrorist attack. this is continuing. 3rd is rails right to conduct the military operations and exercise of its right to defend itself has been recognized internationally. for this royalist, committed to complying with international humanitarian law. and 5th, israel is taking steps to alleviate the humanitarian situation. the corporations and other counts. so happen, we'll address you on this right. 6, this is not a case where provisional measures could require 1st parties to a conflict to exercise mutual restraint. they would not be binding on him most. 7th, a must,

has made clear its intention to consider to carry out continuing attacks against israel and its citizens who provisional measures would deprive israel as the ability to contend with the security threats 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 in florida. but provisional measures would prevent israel from doing anything. 9th provisional measures would end attempts to rescue those already taken hostage tents. suspension of military operations would give her most space to preserve and build its capabilities, enabling it to peruse and even grace of threats and to use remaining hostages. bock and image trips is granted. the result would be this. an organization recognized internationally as terrorist has committed

a terrorist atrocity in the territory of the states. and the 3rd state now seeks an order from this court that would present the attack state 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 passing 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 claimed, but as yet unproven rights pending a decision on the merits. instead, they being used here as a sword to give an advantage to one particular conflict over another. they are referable prejudice to israel is also yes. 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. by turns 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, supposing to 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 casa, it's expressed to apply in relation to the palestinian people. generally, this art is the possibility to laser claims, that actions by israel having nothing to do with gossip, are in breach of this profession. no measure, well, the convention obligation to prevent genocide may not be confined to current operations in johnson. 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. 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 a p as to say, 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, should i move on to the false requested measure. this would require israel to desist from committing acts within the scope of optical to if the convention. there are fundamental objections to this measure. first, it has no counterpart in the provisional measures ordered in the polls and they are in man cases. what's the need for this special noval measure? no explanation is given. second, it uses the word desist, which implies the violations of the convention by israel recurring its sakes and implied rolling on the merits. in the bows me a case, you decline to cross a provisional measure requested by boston to get in touch. the governor that you can fly via must cease and desist from mobile x genocide. you should also refuse

this request. it's one thing to hold on a state to comply with its obligations under the convention. it's quite another to imply that a state has failed to do so well. provisional measures without prejudice to the merits such an implied finding will tarnish. the reputation of all we've been listening to hearing is that they to of hearings on the south african lawsuit against israel. we heard these really defend side saying that other actions did not amounts to on the side and were heard the is really official, derek recounts and how many times out there besides you? right? it's harry and aid them. we listen to a virus they're, they're explaining the legalities and why this case does not meet the provisional measures to and who still it sees immediately. so they've been listening to that and they'll be more of course, and will bring you commentary regarding that a little bit later. but as i said, this has been going on now for 2 days. on thursday we're heard south africa side

and why it's the cues in israel all the trend aside. friday, it was all about israel speaking. it's points of view and one of its points of use is that south africa is actually siding with home loss. and in doing so, put soria has consistently force emphasize that, that is not the case. that is, the presence of the i, c. j is only because of, of solidarity, of course, with palestinians. it is a matter of public record that south africa enjoys close relations with come us. despite its formal recognition as a terrorist organization by numerous states across the world. these relations have continued unabated, even after the october 7th atrocities south africa has long hosted and celebrated its ties with some us spigots. including a senior come out, still a go sion that incredibly visited the country for a quote,

solidarity gathering. just weeks after the mexican, we do not have any monday from, from how much our monday is from the south african government. and in our peace also is not that busy juices of people. our case is like this. the actions of this state is that i have the edges of general sites that are committed and goes up. well, like i said, these really comments came a response to thursday's hearing before the international court of justice was south africa. first presented arguments in its case against is really actions is gone. so let's take a lesson. here's what i as a special genocide, our intent is the router in the belief that in fact the enemy is not just the middle type of weight and of how most or indeed how most and that on file is embedded in the fabrics of palestinian life in cause this intent is evident from israel's conduct in specially targeting palestinians living and gaza using weaponry

that causes large scale, homicidal destruction, designating save stones, for palestinians to seek refuge and then bombing beans. the dispute had crystallized as a metal door. this was consumed by his rounds official and unequivocal denial on 6th december that it was committing genocide in gauze. the representatives for south africa made it explicitly clear that puts for his lawsuit is aimed at the policies and actions and benjamin netanyahu government and military and non jewish, or is really people as a whole. south africa also noticed that it was quick to condemn. they'll sober 7 from us attack on israel, but that's a sold as no justification for quotes genocidal acts by the idea. again, civilians and gaza. south african representatives have provided the following

examples of israeli officials, vowing to destroy garza with the lead. i've ordered a complete c, jim, gaza, there will be no electricity, no food, no more, no fuel. everything will be cut off. we are fighting against human animals and we are acting accordingly. cool. um the entire people and the leadership of the people down embraced um and believing them. remember what looks good to you tomorrow, but we remember and we fight and was a him. meanwhile, some locals in south africa told us they're proud over countries, the size of stance on the war in the middle east. we have lived with other people who have consistently pretended that's the more moral than us have shown that them are really lacking. and importantly, i don't think that the world is going to be the same off to this period because we

know what to expect. and we know other people what not friends of humanity, but rather friends of capital and military industrial, complex one click these things. i mean, that they know must be tries for general site. you must be charged, must be to minimize, it must be a fact. excuse me, not over there. well, it must be part excess. any can in the went, including insult that we broke the normal thing for 1st of all a ceasefire. and it's going to take a lot of time, but we then need to definitely see and into the seats and into the occupation. and they're off to a free state of palestine. well, south africa's landmark lawsuit against israel has been endorsed by dozens of countries as well as many people worldwide. some are of the view pretoria is also seeking just as against countries that previous sleep backs and the forest apartheid government. there's just

a few takeaways on the case from social media users for the 1st time ever. israel is being held accountable for its body crimes before the eyes of the world, the global south data, not the so called civil free world. keep that in mind when you talk about global south from now on, in a will full of colleagues. thanks for the grandson suff manila, the south african apartheid regime was backed by 3 countries to it's richard and israel, the united states and the united kingdom. we can heavy echoes of his history as a free south africa proposed to take israel to quote for genocide. i don't think you all grasp what's happening in south africa, blood people. this arrived a par site, went to become judges and lawyers, and now defending palestine is against the country that's in south africa weapons during a par site. we are leaving history. south africa support for the palestinians goes back decades in 1994, they after being released from prison,

anti apartheid leader and nelson mandela. so the african nation had a lot in common with the palestinian push for independence. we identified with the piano because just like outside they are fighting for the right spot of determination. his active, his granddaughter, and did i come in, dela told us stop south africa is in the unique position to move global opinion against what israel is now doing to the palestinians. but i'm expecting is for the 6 for you know why they might decisions. they come up with, they add to it too and for that through as to how long it will take your guess is as good as mine. you know, i don't know. i'm not expecting it to take that much along with a, with what something you guys up because, you know, we have people i, well,

i certainly hopeful that they have been voted from the apache times to now i tell you cold that that decision will desist this should be assessed by and only a more than the society they should be, you know, strong method, you know, both of us. so that's going to navigate the south african impacted system. some of the new to all start off or we couldn't extensions by the, by the introduction. i mean wait, what case studies of a democratic distance. they should not come up to come back up the question without legit. so we, we, we, we can say we have the authority to be able to, to, to intervene because the re, i base case, best case study best practice or what, how again, our campus, if we look at the past was no one entity has ever ended, was it is a collective action of different people, which is, you know,

how it was. my grandfather looked at anything. it is the color to initiate to and they connect to energy. also a lot of people that concentrate the energy to say that this is the positive outcome, but you want to have this is like you to setup for, you know, to, to, to use it. you know, a e, diplomacy in terms of the, you know, according says via to, to meet to be true to, to fit the people. that's how we're going to reach and we can do solution. that's what just because of apple. so it's a lot because we are pointing them out to see that do what you have set up to do as creating tools in june. is that the vision space but when, when the, when in the country. uh it starts up taking civilians um civilians, hospital and ive taking too many children age that cost the tripped. what is that

has that? and so it is that at that point that it still be so defense. it became like what kinds of for jennifer bell would say anything strict themselves you know, if, if you talk to anybody. yeah. yeah. it's similar to that. if you talk to a child that's a good school, they would always protect them so that this is what made the beach. it helped us test. and that's another pupil. it is the nature of what is to protect themselves. well, we'll have more updates for you in a couple of minutes, so i hope you can join us then the is already those lines. as can be started by lines,

please can be satisfied for the importance of we can never be kind of a station, so that transparency is extraordinary. john mystic patrice then just succeeded in finding documents that existed in making them available to the world public. i mean, what could be more moving box by publishing information and sharing information with the public? he was exercising the rights for a speech he did so in the public interest. so mom realized pen smith and golf and, and honestly, delayed continuously. and i know why advice may assume that no one who is the guy that illegal anymore wisely bought the adjustments for to be on box weighing

a 175 used to go through the extensions. are we going to let that stay? the the 5 ministration is slammed, south africa's get aside case against israel as married liz. this makes the following question. then what is happening in god's, if not a genocide, the secretary of state blake and says it's

a 1000000000 dental and god's is far too high. well, what should that number be? the headlines on r t at least 5 hosting fighters are killed after the american and british military's alisha a massive bombing campaign. only government this friday. travel who has found to retaliate put the official se the western coalition launched more than 70 strikes on gammon. several cities including the capital for a form bar, the plus the hundreds, riley in washington, d. c. a new york. while some american lawmakers swarm the white house order in the military strikes with giles approval from congress. and this will present since for both.