Photo courtesy of the United Nations via Flickr.
By Kiera McLaughlin ’26
Global Section Editor
Content warning: This article discusses state-sanctioned violence and mass death.
As the war in Israel and the Gaza Strip continues, the international community has been reactive, but a new verdict has started to change many countries’ stances. On Dec. 29, 2023, South Africa filed an application to the International Court of Justice against the Israeli government.
South Africa asked in this application that the ICJ call a ceasefire, claiming that Israel has violated the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, AP News reported.
According to the ICJ’s unofficial press release, the 84-page application states that the “acts and omissions by Israel…are genocidal in character, as they are committed with the requisite intent…to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a part of the broader Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group.”
President of South Africa Cyril Ramaphosa and other South Africans have compared Israel's actions against Palestinians to the apartheid regime that historically implemented racial segregation in South Africa, AP News reported.
According to The New York Times, many legal experts have claimed a final verdict on this case will take years. The first ruling took place on Jan. 26, 2024, ordering the Israeli government to prohibit its military troops from committing genocidal acts against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, in addition to facilitating humanitarian assistance and essential services in Gaza.
The ICJ also commented on the hostages taken by Hamas and demanded their “immediate and unconditional release,” The New York Times reported. According to Reuters, that same day, on Jan. 26, the ICJ rejected the petition from Israel to get rid of the case.
Human rights organizations and activists, along with experts, have commented on this decision, including the Secretary General of Amnesty International, Agnès Callamard. “An immediate ceasefire by all parties remains essential and - although not ordered by the Court - is the most effective condition to implement the provisional measures and end the unprecedented civilian suffering,” Callamard said in a statement from Amnesty International regarding the ICJ ruling.
Callamard has advocated for the United States, the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union member states to follow the Court’s decision and “do everything in their power to uphold their obligation to prevent genocide.”
According to The New York Times, the EU has verbally supported the ICJ’s decision and requested that all states respect the Court’s order. Kate Cronin-Furman, professor at University College London, told The New York Times that “an order from the ICJ can’t do much to shift the incentives of a state engaged in a military campaign that its leaders feel is imperative to protecting national security,” she continued, “but it can make allied governments think twice about their support for that campaign.”
Experts have also been discussing the importance of South Africa’s position in this application and what it means for their international foothold. The Director of Research at the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection, Susan Booysen, told Reuters that the application was “reasonably damning.”
“It was quite unambiguous…in highlighting the abuses…so I think it gives [South Africa] quite a bit of esteem as an international spokesperson for human rights,” Booysen said.
As the legal process for the ICJ case continues, Amnesty International persists in its belief that a ceasefire is the answer. At the end of their public statement about the Court’s first verdict, they stated, “Amnesty International calls on Israel, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups to immediately suspend all military operations in Gaza.”
